/ 


THE 


. of-,  tA+rfn 


FIVE  GREAT  MONARCHIES 

OF  THE 


ANCIENT  EASTERN  WORLD ; 


OR, 


THE  HISTORY,  GEOGRAPHY,  AND  ANTIQUITIES  OF  CHALDEA, 
ASSYRIA,  BABYLON,  MEDIA,  AND  PERSIA, 


COLLECTED  AND  ILLUSTRATED  FROM  ANCIENT  AND  MODERN  SOURCES. 


By  GEORGE  RAWLINSON,  M.A., 

CAMDEN  PROFESSOR  OF  ANCIENT  HISTORY  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD; 
LATE  FELLOW  AND  TUTOR  OF  EXETER  COLLEGE. 


SECOND  EDITION. 

IN  THREE  VOLUMES.— Yol.  I. 

WITH  MAPS  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


NEW  YORK : 

SCRIBNER,  WELFORD,  AND  CO. 


MDCCCLXXI. 


TO  MY  BROTHER, 


HENRY  ORE8WICKE  RAWLINSON,  K.C.B.,  D.C.L., 

&c.  &c.  &c., 

TO  WHOSE  GENIUS,  LABOURS,  AND  CONSTANT  KINDNESS 
I FEEL  MYSELF  INDEBTED 
MORE  THAN  I CAN  EXPRESS, 

THIS  WORK 
IS  DEDICATED, 

AS  A SMALL  TOKEN 

OF  GRATEFUL  AND  AFFECTIONATE  REMEMBRANCE. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


In  preparing  for  the  press,  after  an  interval  of  seven  years,  a 
second  edition  of  this  work,  the  author  has  found  it  unnecessary 
to  make,  excepting  in  two  chapters,  any  important  or  extensive 
alterations.  The  exceptions  are  the  chapters  on  the  History 
and  Chronology  of  Chaldsea  and  Assyria.  So  much  fresh  light 
has  been  thrown  on  these  two  subjects  by  additional  discoveries, 
made  partly  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson,  partly  by  his  assistant, 
Mr.  George  Smith,  through  the  laborious  study  of  fragmentary 
inscriptions  now  in  the  British  Museum,  that  many  pages  of 
the  two  chapters  in  question  required  to  be  written  afresh,  and 
the  Chronological  Schemes  required,  in  the  one  case  a com- 
plete, and  in  the  other  a partial,  revision.  In  making  this 
revision,  both  of  the  Chronology  and  the  History,  the  author 
has  received  the  most  valuable  assistance,  both  from  the  pub- 
lished papers  and  from  the  private  communications  of  Mr. 
Smith — an  assistance  for  which  he  desires  to  make  in  this  place 
the  warmest  and  most  hearty  acknowledgment.  He  is  also 
beholden  to  a recent  Eastern  traveller,  Mr.  A.  I).  Berrington, 
for  some  valuable  notes  on  the  physical  geography  and  pro- 
ductions of  Mesopotamia,  which  have  been  embodied  in  the 
accounts  given  of  those  subjects.  A few  corrections  have  like- 
wise been  made  of  errors  pointed  out  by  anonymous  critics. 
Substantially,  however,  the  work  continues  such  as  it  was  on 
its  first  appearance,  the  author  having  found  that  time  only 
deepened  his  conviction  of  the  reality  of  cuneiform  decipher- 
ment, and  of  the  authenticity  of  the  history  obtained  by  means 
of  it. 


Oxford,  November,  1870. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


The  history  of  Antiquity  requires  from  time  to  time  to  be 
re-written.  Historical  knowledge  continually  extends,  in  part 
from  the  advance  of  critical  science,  which  tearches  us  little  by 
little  the  true  value  of  ancient  authors,  but  also,  and  more 
especially,  from  the  new  discoveries  which  the  enterprise  of 
travellers  and  the  patient  toil  of  students  are  continually 
bringing  to  light,  whereby  the  stock  of  our  information  as  to 
the  condition  of  the  ancient  world  receives  constant  augmen- 
tation.  The  extremest  scepticism  cannot  deny  that  recent 
researches  in  Mesopotamia  and  the  adjacent  countries  have 
recovered  a series  of  “ monuments”  belonging  to  very  early 
times,  capable  of  throwing  considerable  light  on  the  Antiquities 
of  the  nations  which  produced  them.  The  author  of  these 
volumes  believes,  that,  together  with  these  remains,  the  lan- 
guages of  the  ancient  nations  have  been  to  a large  extent 
recovered,  and  that  a vast  mass  of  written  historical  matter 
of  a very  high  value  is  thereby  added  to  the  materials  at  the 
Historian’s  disposal.  This  is,  clearly,  not  the  place  where  so 
difficult  and  complicated  a subject  can  be  properly  argued. 
The  author  is  himself  content  with  the  judgment  of  “ experts,” 
and  believes  it  would  be  as  difficult  to  impose  a fabricated 
language  on  Professor  Lassen  of  Bonn  and  Professor  Max  Muller 
of  Oxford,  as  to  palm  off  a fictitious  for  a real  animal  form  on 
Professor  Owen  of  London.  The  best  linguists  in  Europe  have 
accepted  the  decipherment  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  as  a 
thing  actually  accomplished.  Until  some  good  linguist,  having 


PREFACE. 


vii 

carefully  examined  into  the  matter,  declares  himself  of  a con- 
trary opinion,  the  author  cannot  think  that  any  serious  doubt 
rests  on  the  subject.* 

The  present  volumes  aim  at  accomplishing  for  the  Five 
Nations  of  which  they  treat  what  Movers  and  Ken  rick  have 
accomplished  for  Phoenicia,  or  (still  more  exactly)  what  Wilkin- 
son has  accomplished  for  Ancient  Egypt.  Assuming  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  historical  inscriptions  as,  in  general,  sufficiently 
ascertained,  and  the  various  ancient  remains  as  assigned  on 
sufficient  grounds  to  certain  peoples  and  epochs,  they  seek  to 
unite  with  our  previous  knowledge  of  the  five  nations,  whether 
derived  from  Biblical  or  classical  sources,  the  new  information 
obtained  from  modern  discovery.  They  address  themselves  in 
a great  measure  to  the  eye ; and  it  is  hoped  that  even  those 
who  doubt  the  certainty  of  the  linguistic  discoveries  in  which 
the  author  believes,  will  admit  the  advantage  of  illustrating  the 
life  of  the  ancient  peoples  by  representations  of  their  produc- 
tions. Unfortunately,  the  materials  of  this  kind  which  recent 
explorations  have  brought  to  light  are  very  unequally  spread 
among  the  several  nations  of  which  it  is  proposed  to  treat,  and, 
even  where  they  are  most  copious,  fall  short  of  the  abundance 
of  Egypt.  Still,  in  every  case  there  is  some  illustration  pos- 
sible ; and  in  one — Assyria — both  the  “ Arts  ” and  the  “ Manners  ” 
of  the  people  admit  of  being  illustrated  very  largely  from  the 
remains  still  extant.! 

The  Author  is  bound  to  express  his  obligations  to  the  follow- 
ing writers,  from  whose  published  works  he  has  drawn  freely : — 
MM.  Botta  and  Flandin,  Mr.  Layard,  Mr.  James  Fergusson, 


* Some  writers  allow  that  the  Persian  cuneiform  inscriptions  have  been  success- 
fully deciphered  and  interpreted,  but  appear  to  doubt  the  interpretation  of  the 
Assyrian  records.  (See  Edinburgh  Review  for  July,  1862,  Art.  III.,  p.  108.)  Are 
they  aware  that  the  Persian  inscriptions  are  accompanied  in  almost  every  instance 
by  an  Assyrian  transcript,  and  that  Assyrian  interpretation  thus  follows  upon 
Persian,  without  involving  any  additional  “ guess-work  ” ? 
f See  Chapters  VI.  and  VII.  of  the  Second  Monarchy. 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


Mr.  Loftus,  Mr.  Cullimore,  and  Mr.  Birch.  He  is  glad  to  take 
this  occasion  of  acknowledging  himself  also  greatly  beholden  to 
the  constant  help  of  his  brother,  Sir  Henry  Bawlinson,  and 
to  the  liberality  of  Mr.  Vaux,  of  the  British  Museum.  The 
latter  gentleman  kindly  placed  at  his  disposal,  for  the  purposes 
of  the  present  work,  the  entire  series  of  unpublished  drawings 
made  by  the  artists  who  accompanied  Mr.  Loftus  in  the  last 
Mesopotamian  Expedition,  besides  securing  him  undisturbed 
access  to  the  Museum  sculptures,  thus  enabling  him  to  enrich 
the  present  volume  with  a large  number  of  most  interesting 
Illustrations  never  previously  given  to  the  public.  In  the  sub- 
joined list  these  illustrations  are  carefully  distinguished  from 
such  as,  in  one  shape  or  another,  have  appeared  previously. 


Oxford , September , 1862. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I, 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 

vyV\^/VV\AAAA/\/\^ 

CHALDEA. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Page 

General  View  of  the  Country  1 

CHAPTER  II. 

Climate  and  Productions 28 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  People  43 

CHAPTER  IY. 

Language  and  Writing  ..  61 

CHAPTER  Y. 

Arts  and  Sciences 70 

CHAPTER  YI. 

Manners  and  Customs 105 

CHAPTER  YII. 

Religion 110 

CHAPTER  VIII. 


History  and  Chronology 


149 


X 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


ASSYRIA. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Page 

Description  of  the  Country  180 

CHAPTER  II. 

Climate  and  Productions 210 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  People  236 

CHAPTER  IY. 

The  Capital ..  248 

CHAPTER  Y. 

Language  and  Writing  262 

CHAPTER  YI. 

Architecture  and  other  Arts  ..  277 

CHAPTER  YII. 


Manners  and  Customs 


406 


LIST  OP  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Page 


1.  Plan  of  Mugheir  Kuins  (after  Taylor ) 17 

2.  Kuins  of  Warka  (Erech)  (after  Loftus ) 19 

3.  Akkerkuf  (after  Ker  Porter ) 22 

4.  Hammam  (after  Loftus ) 23 

5.  Tel-Ede  (ditto)  23 

6.  Palms  (after  Oppert ) 34 

7.  Chaldsean  reeds,  from  an  Assyrian  sculpture  (after  Layard ) 37 

8.  Wild  sow  and  pigs,  from  Koyunjik  ( Layard ) 40 

9.  Ethiopians  (after  Prichard')  53 

10.  Cuneiform  inscriptions  ( drawn  by  the  Author  from  bricks  in  the  British 

Museum) ..  ..  63,64 

11.  Chaldsean  tablet  (after  Layard)  68 

12.  Signet-cylinder  (after  Ker  Porter) 69 

13.  Bowariyeh  (after  Loftus) 74 

14.  Mugheir  Temple  (ditto) 76 

15.  Ground-plan  of  ditto  (ditto)  ..  -..  ..  78 

16.  Mugheir  Temple,  restored  (by  the  Author)  79 

17.  Terra  cotta  cone,  actual  size  (after  Loftus)  82 

18.  Plan  and  wall  of  building  patterned  with  cones  (after  Loftus) 83 

19.  Ground-plan  of  chambers  excavated  at  Abu-Shahrein  (after  Taylor)  . . . . 84 

20.  Brick  vault  at  Mugheir  (ditto)  86 

21.  Chaldsean  dish-cover  tombs  (ditto) 88 

22.  Chaldsean  jar-coffin  (ditto)  89 

23.  Section  of  drain  (ditto)  90 

24.  Chaldsean  vases  of  the  first  period  ( drawn  by  the  Author  from  vases  in  the 

British  Museum) 91 

25.  Chaldsean  vases,  drinking-vessels,  and  amphora  of  the  second  period  (ditto)  91 

26.  Chaldsean  lamps  of  the  second  period  (ditto) 92 

27.  Seal-cylinder  on  metal  axis  (drawn  and  partly  restored  by  the  Author)  . . 93 

28.  Signet-cylinder  of  King  Urukh  (after  Ker  Porter)  94 

29.  Flint  knives  ( drawn  by  the  Author  from  the  originals  in  the  British 

Museum) 95 

30.  Stone  hammer,  hatchet,  adze,  and  nail  (chiefly  after  Taylor)  96 

31.  Chaldsean  bronze  spear  and  arrow  heads  ( drawn  by  the  Author  from  the 

originals  in  the  British  Museum) . . . . 96 

32.  Bronze  implements  (ditto)  . . . . . . . . 97 

33.  Flint  implement  (after  Taylor)  . . 97 

34.  Ear-rings  ( drawn  by  the  Author  from  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum)  98 

35.  Leaden  pipe  and  jar  (ditto)  98 

36.  Bronze  bangles  (ditto)  99 


Xll  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Page 

37.  Senkareh  Table  of  Squares  103 

38.  Costumes  of  Chaldaeans  from  the  cylinders  (after  Cullimore  and  Rich)  . . 106 

39.  Serpent  symbol  (after  Cullimore)  122 

40.  Symbols  of  the  Moon-God  (ditto) 125 

41.  Symbols  of  the  Sun-God  (ditto)  128 

42.  Symbols  of  the  Sun-Goddess  (ditto) 129 

43.  Flaming  sword  (ditto)  130 

44.  Figure  of  Nin,  the  Fish-God  (Layard)  132 

45.  Nin’s  emblem,  the  Man-Bull  (ditto)  133 

46.  Fish  symbols  (after  Cullimore) 133 

47.  Bel-Merodach  (ditto)  135 

48.  Nergal’s  emblem,  the  Man-Lion  ( Layard ) 137 

49.  50.  Clay  images  of  Ishtar  (after  Cullimore  and  Layard)  139,  140 

51.  Nebo  ( drawn  by  the  Author  from  a statue  in  the  British  Museum)  . . . . 141 

52.  Signet  of  Kurri-galzu,  King  of  Babylon  ( drawn  by  the  Author  from  an  im- 

pression in  the  possession  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson)  ..  ..  170 

53.  The  Khabour,  from  near  Arban,  looking  north  (after  Layard)  187 

54.  Koukab  (ditto) 189 

55.  Lake  of  Khatouniyeh  (ditto) 190 

56.  Colossal  lion,  near  Seruj  (after  Chesney)  197 

57.  Plan  of  the  ruins  at  Nimrud  (Calah)  ( reduced  by  the  Author  from  Captain 

Jones’s  survey)  200 

58.  Great  mound  of  Nimrud  or  Calah  (after  Layard) 202 

59.  Hand-swipe,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 215 

60.  Assyrian  lion,  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  220 

61.  Ibex,  or  wild  goat,  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  221 

62.  Wild  ass  (after  Ker  Porter)  222 

63.  Leopard,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard) 223 

64.  Wild  ass,  from  Koyunjik  (from  an  unpublished  drawing  by  Mr.  Boutcher 

in  the  British  Museum)  223 

65.  Gazelle,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard)  224 

66.  Stag  and  hind,  from  Koyunjik  (from  an  unpublished  drawing  by  Mr. 

Boutcher  in  the  British  Museum) 224 

67.  Fallow  deer,  from  Koyunjik  (after  Layard) 225 

68.  Hare  and  eagles,  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  225 

69.  Hare,  from  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  226 

70.  Chase  of  wild  ox,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard)  227 

71.  Vulture,  from  Nimrud  (ditto) 228 

72.  Vulture  feeding  on  corpse,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 228 

73.  Ostrich,  from  a cylinder  (after  Cullimore)  228 

74.  Ostrich,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard)  228 

75.  Partridges,  from  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  228 

76.  Unknown  birds,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  229 

77.  Assyrian  garden  and  fish-pond,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard)  229 

78.  Bactrian  or  two-humped  camel,  from  Nimrud  (ditto) 230 

79.  Mesopotamian  sheep  (ditto)  230 

80.  Loading  a camel,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 231 

81.  Head  of  an  Assyrian  horse,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 231 

82.  Assyrian  horse,  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  232 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Xlll 


Page 

83.  Mule  ridden  by  two  women,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard ) 233 

84.  Loaded  mule,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  233 

85.  Cart  drawn  by  mules,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  234 

86.  Dog  modelled  in  clay,  from  the  palace  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  Koyunjik  ( drawn 

by  the  Author  from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  234 

87.  Dog  in  relief,  on  a clay  tablet  (after  Layard ) ■ 235 

88.  Assyrian  duck,  Nimrud  (ditto)  235 

89.  Assyrians,  Nimrud  (ditto)  • 238 

90.  Mesopotamian  captives,  from  an  Egyptian  monument  (Wilkinson)  . . ..  238 

91.  Limbs  of  Assyrians,  from  the  Sculptures  (after  Layard ) 240 

92.  Capture  of  a city,  Nimrud  (ditto) 242 

93.  Captives  of  Sargon,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) 243 

94.  Captive  women  in  a cart,  Nimrud  (Layard) 243 

95.  Ruins  of  Niniveh  ( reduced  by  the  Author  from  Captain  Jones’s  survey)  ..  253 

96.  Khosr-Su  and  mound  of  Nebbi-Yunus  (after  Layard ) 255 

97.  Gate  in  the  north  wall,  Nineveh  (ditto)  258 

98.  Outer  defences  of  Nineveh,  in  their  present  condition  (ditto)  260 

99.  Assyrian  cylinder  (after  Birch ) 263 

100.  Assyrian  seals  (after  Layard ) 264 

101.  Assyrian  clay  tablets  (ditto) 265 

102.  Black  Obelisk,  from  Nimrud  (after  Birch ) 266 

103.  Terrace-wall  at  Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) 278 

104.  Pavement-slab,  from  the  Northern  Palace,  Koyunjik  (Fergusson)  ..  ..  279 

105.  Mound  of  Khorsabad  (ditto) 280 

106.  Plan  of  the  Palace  of  Sargon,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 281 

107.  Hall  of  Esar-haddon’s  Palace,  Nimrud  (ditto)  283 

108.  Plan  of  the  Palace  of  Sargon,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 287 

109.  Remains  of  Propylaeum,  or  outer  gateway,  Khorsabad  (Layard)  ..  ..  288 

110.  King  and  attendants,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  290 

111.  Plan  of  palace  gateway  (ditto)  291 

112.  King  punishing  prisoners,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  292 

113.  North-West  Court  of  Sargon ’s  Palace  at  Khorsabad,  restored  (after  Fer- 

gusson) 293 

114.  Sargon  in  his  war-chariot,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  294 

115.  Cornice  of  temple,  Khoi’sabad  (Fergusson)  296 

116.  Armenian  louvre  (after  Botta)  304 

117.  Armenian  buildings,  from  Koyunjik  (Layard)  305 

118.  Interior  of  an  Assyrian  palace,  restored  (ditto) 306 

119.  Assyrian  castle  on  Nimrud  obelisk  (drawn  by  the  Author  from  the  original 

in  the  British  Museum)  308 

120.  Assyrian  altar,  from  a bas-relief,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta) 308 

121.  Assyrian  temple,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  309 

122.  Assyrian  temple,  from  Lord  Aberdeen’s  black  stone  (after  Fergusson)  ..  309 

123.  Assyrian  temple,  Nimrud  (drawn  by  the  Author  from  the  original  in  the 

British  Museum) 310 

124.  Assyrian  temple,  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 310 

125.  Circular  pillar-base,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard)  311 

126.  Basement  portion  of  an  Assyrian  temple,  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (drawn 

by  the  Author  from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum) 312 


xiv  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Page 

127.  Porch  of  the  Cathedral,  Trent  (from  an  original  sketch  made  by  the 

Author ) 313 

128.  Tower  of  a temple,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard ) 314 

129.  Tower  of  ditto,  restored  (by  the  Author ) 314 

130.  Tower  of  Great  Temple  at  Nimrud  (after  Layard ) 315 

131.  Basement  of  temple-tower,  Nimrud,  north  and  west  sides  (ditto)  . . . . 316 

132.  Ground-plan  of  Nimrud  Tower  (ditto) 318 

133.  Ground-plans  of  temples,  Nimrud  (ditto)  319 

134.  Entrance  to  smaller  temple,  Nimrud  (ditto) 321 

135.  Assyrian  village,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  322 

136.  Village  near  Aleppo  (ditto) 323 

137.  Assyrian  battlemented  wall  (ditto)  324 

138.  Masonry  and  section  of  platform  wall,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) 325 

139.  Masonry  of  town-wall,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  326 

140.  Masonry  of  tower  or  moat,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  ..  ,.  327 

141.  Arched  drain,  North-West  Palace,  Nimrud  (after  Layard ) 328 

142.  Arched  drain,  South-East  Palace,  Nimrud  (ditto)  . . 329 

143.  False  arch  (Greek) 330 

144.  Assyrian  patterns,  Nimrud  (Layard') 331 

145.  Ditto  (ditto)  332 

146.  Bases  and  capitals  of  pillars  (chiefly  drawn  by  the  Author  from  bas-reliefs 

in  the  British  Museum)  333,  334 

147.  Ornamental  doorway,  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (from  an  unpublished 

drawing  by  Mr.  Boutcher  in  the  British  Museum) 335 

148.  Water  transport  of  stone  for  building,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard)  . . . . 338 

149.  Assyrian  statue  from  Kileh-Sherghat  (ditto)  339 

150.  Statue  of  Sardanapalus  I.,  from  Nimrud  (ditto) 340 

151.  Clay  statuettes  of  the  god  Nebo  (after  Botta)  341 

152.  Clay  statuette  of  the  Fish-God  (drawn  by  the  Author  from  the  original  in 

the  British  Museum) 342 

153.  Clay  statuette  from  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  342 

154.  Lion-hunt,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard)  344 

155.  Assyrian  seizing  a wild  bull,  Nimrud  (ditto)  346 

156.  Hawk-headed  figure  and  sphinx,  Nimrud  (ditto) 346 

157.  Death  of  a wild  bull,  Nimrud  (ditto) 347 

158.  King  killing  a lion,  Nimrud  (ditto)  347 

159.  Trees  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  348 

160.  Trees  from  Koyunjik  (ditto) 349 

,161.  Groom  and  horses,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  350 

162.  163.  Assyrian  oxen,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 351 

164.  Assyrian  goat  and  sheep,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  ..  ..  ..  352 

165.  Vine  trained  on  a fir,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (drawn  by  the 

Author  from  a bas-relief  in  the  British  Museum) 353 

166.  Lilies,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 354 

167.  Death  of  two  wild  asses,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (from  an  un- 

published drawing  by  Mr.  Boutcher  in  the  British  Museum) 355 

168.  Lion  about  to  spring,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 355 

169.  Wounded  wild  ass,  seized  by  hounds,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik 

(ditto) 356 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


XV 


Page 

170.  Wounded  lion,  about  to  fall,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (from  an 

unpublished  drawing  by  Mr.  Boutcher , in  the  British  Museum)  . . . . 357 

171.  Wounded  lion  biting  a chariot-wheel,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyuniik 

(ditto) 358 

172.  King  shooting  a lion  on  the  spring,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  359 

173.  Lion-liunt  in  a river,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 361 

174.  Bronze  lion,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard ) 365 

175.  Fragments  of  bronze  ornaments  of  the  throne,  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  ..  ..  365 

176.  Bi’onze  casting,  from  the  throne,  Nimrud  (ditto) 366 

177.  Feet  of  tripods  in  bronze  and  iron  (ditto) 367 

178.  Bronze  bull’s  head  from  the  throne  (ditto) ..  ..  367 

179.  Bronze  head,  part  of  throne,  showing  bitumen  inside  (ditto)  367 

180.  End  of  a sword-sheath,  from  the  N.  W.  Palace,  Nimrud  (ditto) 368 

181.  Stool  or  chair,  Khoi’sabad  (after  Botta)  . . . 1 368 

182.  Engraved  scarab  in  centre  of  cap,  from  the  N.  W.  Palace,  Nimrud  ( Layard ) 368 

183.  Egyptian  head-dresses  on  bronze  dishes,  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  369 

184.  Ear-rings  from  Nimrud  and  Khorsabad  (ditto) 371 

185.  Bronze  cubes  inlaid  with  gold,  original  size  (ditto)  372 

186.  Egyptian  scarab  (from  Wilkinson) 372 

187.  Fragment  of  ivory  panel,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard)  373 

188.  Fragment  of  a lion  in  ivory,  Nimrud  (ditto) 373 

189.  Figures  and  cartouche  with  hieroglyphics,  on  an  ivory  panel,  from  the  N.  W. 

Palace,  Nimrud  (ditto) 374 

* 190.  Fragment  of  a stag  in  ivory,  Nimrud  (ditto)  375 

191.  Royal  attendant,  Nimrud  (ditto) 376 

192.  Arcade  work,  on  enamelled  brick,  Nimrud  (ditto)  377 

193.  Human  figure,  on  enamelled  brick,  from  Nimrud  (ditto) 379 

JJ14.  Ram’s  head,  on  enamelled  brick,  from  Nimrud  (ditto) 379 

195.  King  and  attendants,  on  enamelled  brick,  from  Nimrud  (ditto) 380 

196.  Impression  of  ancient  Assyrian  cylinder,  in  serpentine  (ditto)  382 

197.  Assyrian  seals  (ditto)  383 

198.  Assyrian  cylinder,  with  the  Fish-God  (ditto)  383 

199.  Royal  cylinder  of  Sennacherib  (ditto) 383 

200.  Assyrian  vases,  amphorae,  &c.  (after  Birch) 386 

201.  Funereal  urn,  from  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  386 

202.  Nestorian  and  Arab  workmen,  with  jar  discovered  at  Nimrud  (Layard)  . . 387 

203.  Lustral  ewer,  from  a bas-relief,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  387 

204.  Wine  vase,  from  a bas-relief,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 388 

205.  Assyrian  clay-lamps  (after  Layard  and  Birch)  388 

206.  Amphora,  with  twisted  arms,  Nimrud  (Birch) 389 

207.  Assyrian  glass  bottles  and  bowl  (after  Layard) 389 

208.  Glass  vase,  bearing  the  name  of  Sargon,  from  Nimrud  (ditto)  390 

209.  Fragments  of  hollow  tubes,  in  glass,  from  Koyunjik  (ditto)  391 

210.  Ordinary  Assyrian  tables,  from  the  bas-reliefs  (by  the  Author) 392 

211.  212.  Assyrian  tables,  from  bas-reliefs,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  3,92 

213.  Table,  ornamented  with  rams’  heads,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard) 392 

214.  Ornamented  table,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 393 

215.  Three-legged  table,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 393 

216.  Sennacherib  on  his  throne,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  ..  ..  . . 393 


xvi  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Page 

217.  Arm-chair  or  throne,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  394 

218.  Assyrian  ornamented  seat,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  394 

219.  Assyrian  couch,  from  a bas-relief,  Koyunjik  (by  the  Author ) 395 

220.  Assyrian  footstools,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  395 

221.  Stands  for  jars  ( Layard ) 396 

222.  Royal  embroidered  dresses,  Nimrud  (ditto) . . 397 

223.  Embroidery  on  a royal  dress,  Nimrud  (ditto)  398 

224.  Circular  breast  ornament  on  a royal  robe,  Nimrud  (ditto) 399 

225.  Assyrians  moving  a human-headed  bull,  partly  restored  from  a bas-relief 

at  Koyunjik  (ditto)  402 

226.  Labourer  employed  in  drawing  a colossal  bull,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 403 

227.  Attachment  of  rope  to  sledge,  on  which  the  bull  was  placed  for  transport, 

Koyunjik  (ditto) 403 

228.  Part  of  a bas-relief,  showing  a pulley  and  a warrior  cutting  a bucket  from 

the  rope  (ditto) 404 

229.  Assyrian  war-chariot,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  407 

230.  Chariot- wheel  of  the  early  period,  Nimrud  (ditto)  407 

231.  Chariot-wheel  of  the  middle  period,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 407 

232.  Chariot-wheel  of  the  latest  period,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 408 

233.  Ornamented  ends  of  chariot-poles,  Nimrud  and  Koyunjik  (ditto)  . . . . 408 

234.  End  of  pole,  with  cross-bar,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta) 410 

235.  End  of  pole,  with  curved  yoke,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard ) 410 

236.  End  of  pole,  with  elaborate  cross-bar  or  yoke,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  ..  411 

237.  Assyrian  chariot  containing  four  warriors,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher)  ..  411 

238.  Assyrian  war-chariot  of  the  early  period,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the 

British  Museum) 412 

239.  Assyrian  war-chariot  of  the  later  period,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 413 

240.  Assyrian  chariot  of  the  transition  period,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher ) . . 414 

241.  Assyrian  chariot  of  the  early  period,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the 

British  Museum) 416 

242.  Chariot-horse  protected  by  clothing,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  416 

243.  Head  of  a chariot-horse,  showing  collar  with  bells  attached,  Koyunjik 

(after  Boutcher ) 417 

244.  Bronze  bit,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  ..  ..  418 

245.  Bits  of  chariot-horses,  from  the  Sculptures,  Nimrud  and  Koyunjik  (ditto)  419 

246.  Driving-whips  of  Assyrian  charioteers,  from  the  Sculptures  (ditto)  . . . . 420 

247.  Mode  of  tying  horses’  tails,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  420 

248.  Mounted  spearmen  of  the  time  of  Sargon,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) . . . . 425 

249.  Greave  or  laced  boot  of  a horseman,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  426 

250.  Cavalry  soldiers  of  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard ) . . 426 

251.  Horse  archer  of  the  latest  period,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the 

British  Museum) 427 

252.  Ordinary  sandal  of  the  first  period,  Nimrud  (ditto) 429 

253.  Convex  shield  of  the  first  period,  Nimrud  (after  Layard) 429 

254.  Foot  spearman  of  the  first  period,  with  wicker  shield,  Nimrud  (from  the 

original  in  the  British  Museum) 429 

255.  Foot  archer,  with  attendant,  first  period,  Nimrud  (ditto) 429 

256.  Foot  archers  of  the  lightest  equipment,  time  of  Sargon,  Khorsabad  (after 

Botta ) 430 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS.  xvii 

Page 

257.  Foot  archer  of  the  intermediate  equipment,  with  attendant,  time  of  Sargon, 

Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) . . . . . . . . 431 

258.  Foot  archer  of  the  heavy  equipment,  with  attendant,  time  of  Sargon, 

Khorsabad  (ditto) 432 

259.  Foot  spearman  of  the  time  of  Sargon,  Khorsabad  (ditto) ..  433 

260.  Shield  and  greave  of  a spearman,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 434 

261.  Spear,  with,  weight  at  the  lower  end,  Khorsabad  (ditto)  434 

262.  Sling,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  435 

263.  Foot  archer  of  the  heavy  equipment,  with  attendant,  time  of  Sennacherib, 

Koyunjik  (ditto) 435 

264.  Foot  archers  of  the  second  class,  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  ..  436 

265.  Belts  and  head-dress  of  a foot  archer  of  the  third  class,  time  of  Sen- 

nacherib, Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher ) 436 

266.  Mode  of  carrying  the  quiver,  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (from  the 

original  in  the  British  Museum) 437 

267.  Foot  archers  of  the  lightest  equipment,  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  437 

268.  Foot  spearman  of  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (after  Bayard)  ..  ..  438 

269.  Wicker  shields,  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the 

British  Museum) 439 

270.  Metal  shield  of  the  latest  period,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  440 

271.  Slinger,  time  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher)  ..  ..  ..  440 

272.  Pointed  helmet,  with  curtain  of  scales,  Nimrud  (after  Bayard) 441 

273.  Iron  helmet,  from  Koyunjik,  now  in  the  British  Museum  (by  the  Author)  ..  441 

274.  Assyrian  crested  helmets,  from  the  bas-reliefs,  Khorsabad  and  Koyunjik 

(from  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum)  442 

-^275.  Scale,  Egyptian  (after  Sir  G.  Wilkinson)  443 

276.  Arrangement  of  scales  in  Assyrian  scale-armour  of  the  second  period, 

Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  443 

277.  Sleeve  of  a coat  of  mail — scale-armour  of  the  first  period,  Nimrud  (from 

the  original  in  the  British  Museum) 444 

278.  Assyrian  gerrha,  or  large  wicker  shields  (ditto) 445 

279.  Soldier  undermining  a wall,  sheltered  by  gerrhon,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  ..  ..  446 

280.  Round  shields  or  targes,  patterned,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  447 

281.  Convex  shields  with  teeth,  Nimrud  (from  the  originals  in  the  British 

Museum)  ..  ..  447 

282.  Egyptian  convex  shield,  worn  on  back  (after  Sir  G.  Wilkinson) 448 

283.  Assyrian  ditto,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  . . 448 

284.  Assyrian  convex  shield,  resembling  the  Greek,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  . . . . 448 

285.  Quiver,  with  arrows  and  javelin,  Nimrud  (ditto) 449 

286.  Ornamented  end  of  bow,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  449 

287.  Stringing  the  bow,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  . . 450 

288.  Assyrian  curved  bow  (ditto)  . . . . 450 

289.  Assyrian  angular  bow,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  . . 450 

290.  Mode  of  carrying  the  bow  in  a bow-case,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in 

the  British  Museum)  ..  . ..  ..  451 

291.  Peculiar  mode  of  carrying  the  quiver,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  451 

292.  Quiver,  with  rich  ornamentation,  Nimrud  (after  Bayard) 452 

293.  Quivers  of  the  ordinary  character,  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the 

British  Museum) : 452 

VOL.  I.  b 


XV111 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Page 

294.  Quiver  with  projecting  rod,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta) 453 

295.  Assyrian  covered  quivers,  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the  British 

Museum)  453 

296.  Bronze  arrow-heads,  Nimrud  and  Koyunjik  (ditto)  454 

297.  Flint  arrow-head,  Nimrud  (ditto) 454 

298.  Assyrian  arrow  (ditto) ..  455 

299.  Mode  of  drawing  the  bow,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher) ..  ..  455 

300.  Guard  worn  by  an  archer,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 456 

301.  Bronze  spear-head,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  ..  456 

302.  Spear-heads  (from  the  Sculptures)  457 

303.  Ornamented  ends  of  spear-shafts,  Nimrud  (after  Layard ) 457 

304.  Ornamented  handle  of  short  sword,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) 457 

305.  Sheathed  sword,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher ) 458 

306.  Ornamented  handle  of  longer  sword,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the 

British  Museum) . . . . 458 

307.  Assyrian  curved  sword,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) 458 

308.  Head  of  royal  mace,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 459 

309.  Maces,  from  the  Sculptures 459 

310.  Assyrian  battle-axes,  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum)  459 

311.  Scythian  battle-axe  (after  Texier) 459 

312.  Ornamented  handles  of  daggers,  Nimrud  (after  Layard ) 460 

313.  Handle  of  dagger,  with  chain,  Nimrud  (ditto)  460 

314. , Sheaths  of  daggers,  Nimrud  (ditto)  461 

315.  Assyrian  standard,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta') 461 

316.  Soldier  swimming  a river,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard) ..  464 

317.  Royal  tent,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  ..  ..  465 

318.  Ordinary  tent,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher) 465 

319.  Interior  of  tent,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 465 

320.  King  walking  in  a mountainous  country,  chariot  following,  supported  by 

men,  Koyunjik  (from  an  obelisk  in  the  British  Museum,  after  Boutcher)  466 

321.  Fortified  place,  belonging  to  an  enemy  of  the  Assyrians,  Nimrud  (after 

Layard)  468 

322.  Gateway  of  castle,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher)  469 

323.  Battering-rams,  Khorsabad  and  Koyunjik  (partly  after  Botta)  . . . . ■. . 470 

324.  Assyrian  balistce,  Nimrud  (after  Layard)  472 

325.  Crowbar,  and  mining  the  wall,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 473 

326.  Implement  used  in  the  destruction  of  cities,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  ..  474 

327.  Soldiers  destroying  date-palms,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard) 475 

328.  Soldier  carrying  off  spoil  from  a temple,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  . . . . 475 

329.  Scribes  taking  account  of  the  spoil,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 476 

330.  Mace-bearer,  with  attendant,  executing  a prisoner,  Koyunjik  (from  the 

original  in  the  British  Museum) >.  ..  477 

331.  Swordsman  decapitating  a prisoner,  Koyunjik  (ditto) . . . . 478 

332.  Female  captives,  with  children,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard) 480 

333.  Chasuble  or  outer  garment  of  the  king  (chiefly  after  Botta)  . . . . . . 485 

334.  King  in  his  robes,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta) 486 

335.  Tiaras  of  the  later  and  earlier  periods,  Koyunjik  and  Nimrud  (JLayard 

and  Boutcher)  487 

336.  Fillet  worn  by  the  king,  Nimrud  (after  Layard) 487 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS.  xix 

Page 

337.  Royal  sandals,  times  of  Sargon  and  Asshur-izir-pal  (from  the  originals  in 

the  British  Museum)  ..  ..  ..  .,  .,  ..  ...  488 

338.  Royal  shoe,  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  488 

339.  Royal  necklace,  Nimrud  (ditto) 489 

340.  Royal  collar,  Nimrud  (ditto) . . 489 

341.  Royal  armlets,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  490 

342.  Royal  bracelets,  Khorsabad  and  Koyunjik  (after  Botta  and  Boutcher ) . . 490 

343.  Royal  ear-rings,  Nimrud  (from  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum)  . . 491 

344.  Early  king  in  his  war-costume,  Nimrud  (ditto)  491 

345.  King,  queen,  and  attendants,  Koyunjik  (ditto) . . 493 

346.  Enlarged  figure  of  the  queen,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 494 

347.  Royal  parasols,  Nimrud  and  Koyunjik  (ditto)  495 

348.  Heads  of  eunuchs,  Nimrud  (ditto) 497 

349.  The  chief  eunuch,  Nimrud  (ditto) 498 

350.  Head-dress  of  the  vizier,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta ) 499 

351.  Costumes  of  the  vizier,  times  of  Sennacherib  and  Asshur-izir-pal,  Nimrud 

and  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum)  500 

352.  Tribute-bearers  presented  by  the  chief  eunuch,  Nimrud  obelisk  (ditto)  ..  502 

353.  Fans  or  fly-flappers,  Nimrud  and  Koyunjik  (ditto)  503 

354.  King  killing  a lion,  Nimrud  (after  La-yard) 506 

355.  King,  -with  attendants,  spearing  a lion,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher)  . . . . 506 

356.  King,  with  attendant,  stabbing  a lion,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  507 

357.  Lion  let  out  of  trap,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  ..  ..  509 

358.  Hound  held  in  leash,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  510 

J159.  Wounded  lioness,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  512 

360.  Fight  of  lion  and  bull,  Nimrud  (after  Layard) 512 

361.  King  hunting  the  wild  bull,  Nimrud  (ditto)  513 

362.  King  pouring  libation,  over  four  dead  lions,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in 

the  British  Museum)  .,  ..  515 

363.  Hound  chasing  a,  wild  ass  colt,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher) 516 

364.  Dead  wild  ass,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  ..  ..  516 

365.  Hounds  pulling  down  a wild  ass,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  517 

366.  Wild  ass  taken  with  a rope,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  517 

367.  Hound  chasing  a doe,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher) ..  ..  518 

368.  Hunted  stag  taking  the  water,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 519 

369.  Net  spread  to  take  deer,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  520 

370.  Portion  of  net,  showing  the  arrangement  of  the  meshes  and  the  pegs, 

Koyunjik  (ditto) 520 

371.  Hunted  ibex,  flying  at  full  speed,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher)  521 

372.  Ibex1  transfixed  with  arrow — falling  (ditto) 521 

373.  Sportsman  carrying  a gazelle,  Khorsabad  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  522 

374.  Sportsman  shooting,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  523 

375.  Greyhound  and  hare,  Nimrud  (from  a bronze  bowl  in  the  British  Museum)  523 

376.  Nets,  pegs,  and  balls  of  string,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher) 524 

377.  Man  fishing,  Nimrud  (after  Layard)  ..  ..  525 

378.  Man  fishing,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  526 


XX 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Page 

379.  Man  fishing,  seated  on  skin,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  527 

380.  Bear  standing,  Nimrud  (from  a bronze  bowl  in  the  British  Museum)  . . 528 

381.  Ancient  Assyrian  harp  and  harper,  Nimrud  (from  the  originals  in  the 

British  Museum)  ..  ..  ..  .,  ..  . . 529 

382.  Later  Assyrian  harps  and  harpers,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 530 

383.  Triangular  lyre,  Koyunjik  (ditto) ..  531 

384.  Lyre  with  ten  strings,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  ..  ..  ..  532 

385.  Lyres  with  five-  and  seven  strings,  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the 

British  Museum)  . . . . 533 

386.  Guitar  or  tamboura,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 534 

387.  Player  on  the  double  pipe,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 534 

388.  Tambourine  player  and  other  musicians,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 535 

389.  Eunuch  playing  on  the  cymbals,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher ) 536 

390.  Assyrian  tubbuls , or  drums,  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the  British 

Museum)  537 

391.  Musician  playing  the  dulcimer,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  . . ..  538 

392.  Roman  trumpet  (Column  of  Trajan)  539 

393.  Assyrian  ditto,  Koyunjik  (after  Bayard)  539 

394.  Portion  of  an  Assyrian  trumpet  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  539 

395.  Captives  playing  on  lyres,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 540 

396.  Lyre  on  a Hebrew  coin  (ditto)  541 

397.  Band  of  twenty-six  musicians,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 542 

398.  Time-keepers,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher)  . . 543 

399.  Assyrian  coracle,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  . . 546 

400.  Common  oar,  time  of  Sennacherib,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  . . 547 

401.  Steering  oar,  time  of  Asshur-izir-pal,  Nimrud  (ditto) 547 

402.  Early  long  boat,  Nimrud  (ditto) 549 

403.  Later  long  boat,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta)  549 

404.  Phoenician  bireme,  Koyunjik  (after  Bayard) 550 

405.  Oar  kept  in  place  by  pegs,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  550 

406.  Chart  of  the  district  about  Nimrud,  showing  the  course  of  the  ancient 

canal  and  conduit  (after  the  survey  of  Captain  Jones)  565 

407.  Assyrian  drill-plough  (from  Lord  Aberdeen’s  black  stone,  after  Fergusson)  567 

408.  Modern  Turkish  plough  (after  Sir  C.  Fellows)  567  - 

409.  Modern  Arab  plough  (after  C.  Niebuhr)  567 

410.  Ornamental  belt  or  girdle,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  569 

411.  Ornamental  cross-belt,  Khorsabad  (after  Botta) 569 

412.  Armlets  of  Assyrian  grandees,  Khorsabad  (ditto) 570 

413.  Head-dresses  of  various  officials,  Koyunjik  (from  the  originals  in  the 

British  Museum) 571 

414.  Curious  mode  of  arranging  the  hair,  Koyunjik  (ditto)  571 

415.  Female  seated  (from  an  ivory  in  the  British  Museum)  572 

416.  Females  gathering  grapes  (from  some  ivory  fragments  in  the  British 

Museum)  573 

417.  Necklaee  of  flat  glass  beads  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  ...  574 

418.  Metal  mirror  (ditto)  . . 575 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


XXI 


Page 

419.  Combs  in  iron  and  lapis  lazuli  (from  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum)  575 

420.  Assyrian  joints  of  meat  (from  the  Sculptures)  577 

421.  Killing  the  sheep,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher ) 577 

422.  Cooking  meat  in  cauldron,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard ) 578 

423.  Frying,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the  British  Museum)  578 

424.  Assyrian  fruits  (from  the  Monuments) 579 

425.  Drinking  scene,  Khorsahad  (after  Botta)  ..  ..  ..  ..  580 

426.  Ornamental  wine-cup,  Khorsahad  (ditto)  580 

427.  Attendant  bringing  flowers  to  a banquet,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard)  ..  . 581 

428.  Socket  of  hinge,  Nimrud  (ditto) 582 

429.  Assyrians  seated  on  stools,  Koyunjik  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  583 

430.  Making  the  bed,  Koyunjik  (after  Boutcher ) 583 

431.  Domestic  utensils  (from  the  Sculptures)  584 

432.  Dish  handles,  Nimrud  (after  Layard ) 584 

433.  Bronze  ladle,  Nimrud  (in  the  British  Museum) 585 

434.  Hanging  garden,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard ) 585 

435.  Assyrians  drawing  a hand-cart,  Koyunjik  (ditto) 586 

436.  Assyrian  implements  (from  the  Monuments)  587 

437.  Assyrian  close  carriage  or  litter,  Koyunjik  (from  an  obelisk  in  the  British 

Museum,  after  Boutcher ) 588 

438.  Groom  feeding  horses,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard') 589 

439.  Groom  currycombing  a horse,  Nimrud  (from  the  original  in  the  British 

Museum)  589 


VOL.  1. 


C 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


CHALDEA. 

CHAPTEE  I. 

GENERAL  VIEW  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

“ Behold,  the  land  of  the  Chaldseans.” — Isaiah  xxiii.  13. 

The  broad  belt  of  desert  which  traverses  the  eastern  hemi- 
sphere, in  a general  direction  from  west  to  east  (or,  speaking 
more  exactly,  of  W.S.W.  to  N.E.E.),  reaching  from  the  Atlantic 
on  the  one  hand  nearly  to  the  Yellow  Sea  on  the  other,  is 
interrupted  about  its  centre  by  a strip  of  rich  vegetation,  which 
at  once  breaks  the  continuity  of  the  arid  region,  and  serves  also 
to  mark  the  point  where  the  desert  changes  its  character  from 
that  of  a plain  at  a low  level  to  that  of  an  elevated  plateau  or 
table-land.  West  of  the  favoured  district,  the  Arabian  and 
African  wastes  are  seas  of  sand,  seldom  raised  much  above, 
often  sinking  below,  the  level  of  the  ocean ; while  east  of  the 
same,  in  Persia,  Kerman,  Seistan,  Chinese  Tartary,  and  Mon- 
golia, the  desert  consists  of  a series  of  plateaus,  having  from 
3000  to  nearly  10,000  feet  of  elevation.  The  green  and  fertile 
region,  which  is  thus  interposed  between  the  “ highland  ” and 
the  “ lowland  ” deserts,1  participates,  curiously  enough,  in  both 
characters.  Where  the  belt  of  sand  is  intersected  by  the  valley 
of  the  Nile,  no  marked  change  of  elevation  occurs ; and  the 
continuous  low  desert  is  merely  interrupted  by  a few  miles  of 
green  and  cultivable  surface,  the  whole  of  which  is  just  as 
smooth  and  as  flat  as  the  waste  on  either  side  of  it.  But  it  is 


1 Humboldt,  Aspects  of  Nature,  vol.  i.  pp.  77,  78,  E.  T. 


VOL.  I. 


B 


2 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


otherwise  at  the  more  eastern  interruption.  There  the  verdant 
and  productive  country  divides  itself  into  two  tracts,  running 
parallel  to  each  other,  of  which  the  western  presents  features 
not  unlike  those  that  characterise  the  Nile  valley,  but  on  a 
far  larger  scale ; while  the  eastern  is  a lofty  mountain-region, 
consisting  for  the  most  part  of  five  or  six  parallel  ranges,  and 
mounting  in  many  places  far  above  the  level  of  perpetual  snow. 

It  is  with  the  western  or  plain  tract  that  we  are  here 
concerned.  Between  the  outer  limits  of  the  Syro-Arabian 
desert  and  the  foot  of  the  great  mountain-range  of  Kurdistan 
and  Luristan  intervenes  a territory  long  famous  in  the  world’s 
history,  and  the  chief  site  of  three  out  of  the  five  empires  of 
whose  history,  geography,  and  antiquities  it  is  proposed  to  treat 
in  the  present  volumes.  Known  to  the  Jews  as  Aram-Naharaim, 
or  “ Syria  of  the  two  rivers ; ” to  the  Greeks  and  Romans  as 
Mesopotamia,  or  “ the  between-river  country ; ” to  the  Arabs 
as  Al-Jezireh,  or  “the  island,”  this  district  has  always2  taken 
its  name  from  the  streams,  which  constitute  its  most  striking 
feature,  and  to  which,  in  fact,  it  owes  its  existence.  If  it  were 
not  for  the  two  great  rivers — the  Tigris  and  Euphrates — with 
their  tributaries,  the  more  northern  part  of  the  Mesopotamian 
lowland  would  in  no  respect  differ  from  the  Syro-Arabian  desert 
on  which  it  adjoins,  and  which  in  latitude,  elevation,  and 
general  geological  character,  it  exactly  resembles.  Towards 
the  south,  the  importance  of  the  rivers  is  still  greater ; for  of 
Lower  Mesopotamia  it  may  be  said,  with  more  truth  than 
of  Egypt,3  that  it  is  “ an  acquired  land,”  the  actual  “ gift  ” of 
the  two  streams  which  wash  it  on  either  side ; being,  as  it  is, 
entirely  a recent  formation — a deposit  which  the  streams  have 


2 Even  the  title  of  Shinar,  the  earliest 
known  name  of  the  region  (Gen.  xi.  2), 
may  be  no  exception ; for  it  is  perhaps 
derived  from  the  Hebrew  “ two,” 

and  ar  or  nahr  (Heb.  “ a river.” 

The  form  ar  belongs  to  the  early  Scythic 
or  Cushite  Babylonian,  and  is  found  in 
the  Ar-malchar  of  Pliny  (#.  N.  vi.  26), 
and  the  Armacales  of  Abydenus — terms 
used  to  designate  the  Nahr-malcha 
(Royal  River)  of  other  authors.  (See  | 


the  Fragmenta  Historicorum  Grcecorum, 
vol.  iv.  pp.  283,  284.) 

3 Herodotus,  ii.  5.  Sir  Gardner  Wil- 
kinson observes  that  Herodotus  is  mis- 
taken in  this  instance.  The  Nile  never 
emptied  itself  into  a gulf,  but  from  the 
first  laid  its  deposits  on  ground  already 
raised  above  the  level  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean. (See  the  author’s  Herodotus , 
vol.  ii.  p.  6,  note4.) 


Chap.  I. 


MESOPOTAMIA— UPPER  AND  LOWER. 


3 


made  in  the  shallow  waters  of  a gulf  into  which  they  have 
flowed  for  many  ages.4 

The  division,  which  has  here . forced  itself  upon  our  notice, 
between  the  Upper  and  the  Lower  Mesopotamian  country,  is 
one  very  necessary  to  engage  our  attention  in  connexion  with 
the  ancient  Chaldea.  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the 
term  Chaldsea  had  at  any  time  the  extensive  signification  of 
Mesopotamia,  much  less  that  it  applied  to  the  entire  flat 
country  between  the  desert  and  the  mountains.  Chaldaea  was 
not  the  whole,  but  a part,  of  the  great  Mesopotamian  plain ; 
which  was  ample  enough  to  contain  within  it  three  or  four 
considerable  monarchies.  According  to  the  combined  testimony 
of  geographers  and  historians,5  Chaldsea  lay  towards  the  south, 
for  it  bordered  upon  the  Persian  Gulf ; and  towards  the  west, 
for  it  adjoined  Arabia.  If  we  are  called  upon  to  fix  more 
accurately  its  boundaries,  which,  like  those  of  most  countries 
without  strong  natural  frontiers,  suffered  many  fluctuations,  we 
are  perhaps  entitled  to  say  that  the  Persian  Gulf  on  the  south, 
the  Tigris  on  the  east,  the  Arabian  desert  on  the  west,  and  the 
limit  between  Upper  and  Lower  Mesopotamia  on  the  north, 
formed  the  natural  bounds,  which  were  never  greatly  exceeded 
and  never  much  infringed  upon.  These  boundaries  are  for  the 
most  part  tolerably  clear,  though  the  northern  only  is  invariable. 
Natural  causes,  hereafter  to  be  mentioned  more  particularly,6 
are  perpetually  varying  the  course  of  the  Tigris,  the  shore  of 
the  Persian  Gulf,  and  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the 
sands  of  Arabia  and  the  verdure  of  the  Euphrates  valley.  But 
nature  has  set  a permanent  mark,  half  way  down  the  Meso- 
potamian lowland,  by  a difference  of  geological  structure,  which 
is  very  conspicuous.  Near  Hit  on  the  Euphrates,  and  a little 
below  Samarah  on  the  Tigris,7  the  traveller  who  descends  the 


4 Loftus’s  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p. 
282. 

5 See  Strabo,  xvi.  1,  § 6 ; Pliny, 
H.  N.  vi.  28 ; Ptolemy,  v.  20 ; Beros. 
ap.  Syncell.  pp.  28,  29. 

6 See  below,  pp.  13,  14,  &c. 

7 Ross  came  to  the  end  of  the  al- 
luvium and  the  commencement  of  the 
secondary  formations  in  lat.  34°,  long. 


44°.  ( Journal  of  Geographical  Society, 

vol.  ix.  p.  446.)  Similarly  Captain 
Lynch  found  the  bed  of  the  Tigris 
change  from  pebbles  to  mere  alluvium 
near  Khan  Tholiyeh,  a little  above  its 
confluence  with  the  Adhem.  (Ib.  p.  472.) 
For  the  point  where  the  Euphrates 
enters  on  the  alluvium,  see  Fraser’s 
Assyria  and  Mesopotamia , p.  27. 

B 2 


4 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


streams,  bids  adieu  to  a somewhat  waving  and  slightly  elevated 
plain  of  secondary  formation,  and  enters  on  the  dead  flat  and 
low  level  of  the  mere  alluvium.  The  line  thus  formed  is 
marked  and  invariable ; it  constitutes  the  only  natural  division 
between  the  upper  and  lower  portions  of  the  valley ; and  both 
probability  and  history  point  to  it  as  the  actual  boundary 
between  Chaldsea  and  her  northern  neighbour. 

The  extent  of  ancient  Chaldsea  is,  even  after  we  have  fixed 
its  boundaries,  a question  of  some  difficulty.  From  the  edge  of 
the  alluvium  a little  below  Hit,  to  the  present  coast  of  the 
Persian  Gulf  at  the  mouth  of  the  Shat-el-Arab,  is  a distance  of 
above  430  miles ; while  from  the  western  shore  of  the  Bahr-i- 
Nedjif  to  the  Tigris  at  Serut  is  a direct  distance  of  185  miles. 
The  present  area  of  the  alluvium  west  of  the  Tigris  and  the 
Shat-el-Arab  may  be  estimated  at  about  30,000  square  miles. 
But  the  extent  of  ancient  Chaldsea  can  scarcely  have  been  so 
great.  It  is  certain  that  the  alluvium  at  the  head  of  the 
Persian  Gulf  now  grows  with  extraordinary  rapidity,  and  not 
improbable  that  the  growth  may  in  ancient  times  have  been 
even  more  rapid  than  it  is  at  present.  Accurate  observations 
have  shown  that  the  present  rate  of  increase  amounts  to  as 
much  as  a mile  each  seventy  years,8  while  it  is  the  opinion  of 
those  best  qualified  to  judge  that  the  average  progress  during 
the  historic  period  has  been  as  much  as  a mile  in  every  thirty 
years  ! 9 Traces  of  post-tertiary  deposits  have  been  found  as  far 
up  the  country  as  Tel  Ede  and  Hammam,10  or  more  than 
200  miles  from  the  embouchure  of  the  Shat-el-Arab ; and  there 
is  ample  reason  for  believing  that,  at  the  time  when  the  first 
Chaldsean  monarchy  was  established,  the  Persian  Gulf  reached 
inland,  120  or  130  miles  further  than  at  present.  We  must 


8 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana , p.  282. 

9 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  Journal  of 

the  Geographical  Society , vol.xxvii.  p.  186. 
The  increase  did  not  escape  the  notice 
of  the  ancients.  It  is  mentioned  and 
exaggerated  by  Pliny,  who  says  that 
Charax  of  Spasinus  was  originally  built 
by  Alexander  the  Great  at  the  distance 
of  little  more  than  a mile  from  the 
shore,  but  that  in  the  time  of  Juba  the 


Mauritanian  it  was  50  miles  from  the 
sea,  and  in  his  own  day  120  miles ! 
(Hist.  Nat.  vi.  27.)  This  would  give 
for  the  first  period  a rate  of  increase 
exceeding  a mile  in  seven  years,  and 
for  the  second  a rate  of  about  a mile  a 
year ; or  for  the  whole  period,  a rate  of 
a mile  in  3|  years. 

10  Loftus,  in  Journal  of  the  Geographical 
Society , vol.  xxvi.  p.  146. 


Chap.  I. 


EXTENT  OF  ANCIENT  CHALDiEA — RIVERS. 


5 


deduct  therefore  from  the  estimate  of  extent  grounded  upon  the 
existing  state  of  things,  a tract  of  land  130  miles  long  and 
some  60  or  70  broad,  which  has  been  gained  from  the  sea  in 
the  course  of  about  forty  centuries.  This  deduction  will  reduce 
Chaldsea  to  a kingdom  of  somewhat  narrow  limits ; for  it  will 
contain  no  more  than  about  23,000  square  miles.  This,  it  is 
true,  exceeds  the  area  of  all  ancient  Greece,  including  Thessaly, 
Acarnania,  and  the  islands ; 1 it  nearly  equals  that  of  the  Low 
Countries,  to  which  Chaldsea  presents  some  analogy ; it  is 
almost  exactly  that  of  the  modern  kingdom  of  Denmark ; but 
it  is  less  than  Scotland,  or  Ireland,  or  Portugal,  or  Bavaria ; it 
is  more  than  doubled  by  England,  more  than  quadrupled  by 
Prussia,  and  more  than  octupled  by  Spain,  France,  and  Euro- 
pean Turkey.  Certainly,  therefore,  it  was  not  in  consequence 
of  its  size  that  Chaldsea  became  so  important  a country  in  the 
early  ages,  but  rather  in  consequence  of  certain  advantages  of 
soil,  climate,  and  position,  which  will  be  considered  in  the  next 
chapter. 

It  has  been  already  noticed  that  in  the  ancient  Chaldsea,  the 
chief — almost  the  sole — geographical  features,  were  the  rivers.2 
Nothing  is  more  remarkable  even  now  than  the  featureless 
character  of  the  region,  although  in  the  course  of  ages  it  has 
received  from  man  some  interruptions  of  the  original  uniformity. 
On  all  sides  a dead  level  extends  itself,  broken  only  by  single 
solitary  mounds,  the  remains  of  ancient  temples  or  cities,  by 
long  lines  of  slightly  elevated  embankment  marking  the  course 
of  canals,  ancient  or  recent,  and  towards  the  south  by  a few 
sand-hills.  The  only  further  variety  is  that  of  colour ; for 
while  the  banks  of  the  streams,  the  marsh-grounds,  and  the 
country  for  a short  distance  on  each  side  of  the  canals  in  actual 
operation,  present  to  the  eye  a pleasing,  and  in  some  cases  a 
luxuriant  verdure  ; the  rest,  except  in  early  spring,  is  parched 
and  arid,  having  little  to  distinguish  it  from  the  most  desolate 
districts  of  Arabia.  Anciently,  except  for  this  difference,  the 


1 See  Clinton’s  Fasti  Hellenici , vol.  ii. 
p.  473,  where  the  whole  area  of  Euro- 

pean Greece,  including  Thessaly,  Acar- 


nania, iEtolia,  Euboea,  and  the  other 
littoral  islands,  is  shown  to  he  22,231 
miles.  2 See  above,  p.  2. 


6 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


tract  must  have  possessed  all  the  wearisome  uniformity  of 
the  steppe  region  ; the  level  horizon  must  have  shown  itself  on 
all  sides  unbroken  by  a single  irregularity ; all  places  must 
have  appeared  alike,  and  the  traveller  can  scarcely  have  per- 
ceived his  progress,  or  have  known  whither  or  how  to  direct  his 
steps.  The  riyers  alone,  with  their  broad  sweeps  and  bold 
reaches,  their  periodical  changes  of  swell  and  fall,  their  strength, 
motion,  and  life-giving  power,  can  have  been  objects  of  thought 
and  interest  to  the  first  inhabitants ; and  it  is  still  to  these  that 
the  modern  must  turn  who  wishes  to  represent,  to  himself  or 
others,  the  general  aspect  and  chief  geographical  divisions  of 
the  country. 

The  Tigris  and  Euphrates  rise  from  opposite  sides  of  the 
same  mountain-chain.  This  is  the  ancient  range  of  Niphates 
(a  prolongation  of  Taurus),  the  loftiest  of  the  many  parallel 
ridges  which  intervene  between  the  Euxine  and  the  Mesopota- 
mian plain,  and  the  only  one  which  transcends  in  many  places 
the  limits  of  perpetual  snow.  Hence  its  ancient  appellation, 
and  hence  its  power  to  sustain  unfailingly  the  two  magnificent 
streams  which  flow  from  it.  The  line  of  the  Niphates  is  from 
east  to  west,  with  a very  slight  deflection  to  the  south  of  west ; 
and  the  streams  thrown  off  from  its  opposite  flanks,  run  at  first 
in  valleys  parallel  to  the  chain  itself,  but  in  opposite  directions, 
the  Euphrates  flowing  westward  from  its  source  near  Ararat  to 
Malatiyeh,  while  the  Tigris  from  Diarbekr  “ goes  eastward  to 
Assyria.”3  The  rivers  thus  appear  as  if  never  about  to  meet; 
but  at  Malatiyeh  the  course  of  the  Euphrates  is  changed. 
Sweeping  suddenly  to  the  south-east,  this  stream  passes  within 
a few  miles  of  the  source  of  the  Tigris  below  Lake  Goljik,  and 
forces  a way  through  the  mountains  towards  the  south,  pursuing 
a tortuous  course,  but  still  seeming  as  if  it  intended  ultimately 
to  mingle  its  waters  with  those  of  the  Mediterranean.4  It  is 
not  till  about  Balis,  in  lat.  36°,  that  this  intention  appears  to 
be  finally  relinquished,  and  the  convergence  of  the  two  streams 
begins.  The  Euphrates  at  first  flows  nearly  due  east,  but  soon 


3 Gen.  ii.  14,  marginal  rendering.  | dentem  petit,  ni  Taurus  obstet,  in  nostra 

4 See  the  remark  of  Mela : — “ Occi-  j maria  venturus.”  (Be  Sit.  Orb.  iii.  8.) 


Chap.  I. 


DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  EUPHRATES  AND  TIGRIS.  7 


takes  a course  which  is,  with  few  and  unimportant  deflections, 
about  south-east,  as  far  as  Suk-es-Sheioukh,  after  which  it  runs 
a little  north  of  east  to  Kurnah.  The  Tigris  from  Til  to  Mosul 
pursues  also  a south-easterly  course,  and  draws  but  a very  little 
nearer  to  the  Euphrates.  From  Mosul,  however,  to  Samarah, 
its  course  is  only  a point  east  of  south ; and  though,  after  that, 
for  some  miles  it  flows  off  to  the  east,  yet  resuming,  a little 
below  the  thirty-fourth  parallel,  its  southerly  direction,  it  is 
brought  about  Baghdad  within  twenty  miles  of  the  sister  stream. 
From  this  point  there  is  again  a divergence.  The  course  of  the 
Euphrates,  which  from  Hit  to  the  mounds  of  Mohammed  (long. 
44°),  had  been  E.S.E.,  becomes  much  more  southerly,  while  that 
of  the  Tigris — which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  for  a while  due  south 
— becomes  once  more  only  slightly  south  of  east,5  till  near  Serut, 
where  the  distance  between  the  rivers  has  increased  from  twenty 
to  a hundred  miles.  After  passing  respectively  Serut  and  El 
Khitr,  the  two  streams  converge  rapidly.  The  flow  of  the 
Euphrates  is  at  first  E.S.E.,  and  then  a little  north  of  east  to 
Kurnah,  while  that  of  the  Tigris  is  S.S.E.  to  the  same  point. 
The  lines  of  the  streams  in  this  last  portion  of  their  course, 
together  with  that  which  may  be  drawn  across  from  stream  to 
stream,  form  nearly  an  equilateral  triangle,  the  distances  being 
respectively  104,  110,  and  115  miles.6  So  rapid  is  the  final 
convergence  of  the  two  great  rivers. 

The  Tigris  and  Euphrates  are  both  streams  of  the  first  order. 
The  estimated  length  of  the  former,  including  main  windings, 
is  1146  miles;  that  of  the  latter  is  1780  miles.1*  Like  most 
rivers  that  have  their  sources  in  high  mountain  regions,  they 
are  strong  from  the  first,  and,  receiving  in  their  early  course  a 
vast  number  of  important  tributaries,  become  broad  and  deep 
streams  before  they  issue  upon  the  plains.  The  Euphrates  is 
navigable  from  Sumeisat  (the  ancient  Samosata),  1200  miles 


5  In  one  part  of  its  course,  viz.  from 

Kut-el-Amarah  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Shat-el-Hie  to  Hussun  Khan’s  fort,  50 
miles  lower  down  the  stream,  the 
direction  of  the  Tigris  is  even  north 
of  east. 


6 From  El  Khitr  to  Serut  the  direct 
distance  is  104  miles,  from  Serut  to 
Kurnah  110,  and  from  Kurnah  to  El 
Khitr  115. 

7 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  i. 
pp.  38  and  40. 


8 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


above  its  embouchure  ; and  even  180  miles  higher  up,  is  a river 
“ of  imposing  appearance,”  120  yards  wide  and  very  deep.8  The 
Tigris  is  often  250  yards  wide  at  Diarbekr,9  which  is  not  a 
hundred  miles  from  its  source,  and  is  navigable  in  the  flood 
time  from  the  bridge  of  Diarbekr  to  Mosul,10  from  which  place 
it  is  descended  at  all  seasons  to  Baghdad,  and  thence  to  the 
sea.1  Its  average  width  below  Mosul  is  200  yards,  with  a depth 
which  allows  the  ascent  of  light  steamers,  unless  when  there  is 
an  artificial  obstruction.2  Above  Mosul  the  width  rarely  exceeds 
150  yards,  and  the  depth  is  not  more  in  places  than  three  or 
four  feet.  The  Euphrates  is  250  yards  wide  at  Balbi,  and 
averages  350  yards  from  its  junction  with  the  Khabour  to  Hit ; 
its  depth  is  commonly  from  fifteen  to  twenty  feet.3  Small 
steamers  have  descended  its  entire  course  from  Bir  to  the  sea. 
The  volume  of  the  Euphrates  in  places  is,  however,  somewhat 
less  than  that  of  the  Tigris,  which  is  a swifter  and  in  its  latter 
course  a deeper  stream.  It  has  been  calculated  that  the  quan- 
tity of  water  discharged  every  second  by  the  Tigris  at  Baghdad 
is  164,103  cubic  feet,  while  that  discharged  by  the  Euphrates  at 
Hit  is  72,804  feet.4 

The  Tigris  and  Euphrates  are  very  differently  circumstanced 
with  respect  to  tributaries.  So  long  as  it  runs  among  the 
Armenian  mountains,  the  Euphrates  has  indeed  no  lack  of 
affluents ; but  these,  except  the  Kara  Su,  or  northern  Euphrates, 
are  streams  of  no  great  volume,  being  chiefly  mountain-torrents 
which  collect  the  drainage  of  very  limited  basins.  After  it 
leaves  the  mountains  and  enters  upon  the  low  country  at 
Sumeisat,  the  affluents  almost  entirely  cease ; one,  the  river  of 
Sajur,  is  received  from  the  right,  in  about  lat.  36°  40' ; and  two 


8 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  i. 
p.  44. 

9 Ibid.  p.  15.  It  only  attains  this 
width,  however,  in  the  season  of  the 
floods.  Generally  it  is  at  Diarbekr 
about  100  or  120  yards  wide. 

10  Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  3. 

1 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition, 
vol.  i.  p.  32 ; compare  Layard,  Nineveh 
and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii.  ch.  xiii.  p.  92. 

2 The  1 Euphrates  ’ steamer,  under 


Lieutenant  Lynch,  ascended  the  Tigris 
nearly  to  Nimrud  in  1838 ; but  was 
stopped  by  an  artificial  bund  or  dam 
thrown  across  the  stream  near  that 
place.  (Chesney,  vol.  i.  p.  32.)  The 
‘ Nitocris’  in  1846  attempted  the  ascent, 
but  was  unable  to  proceed  far  above 
Tekrit,  from  a want  of  sufficient  power. 
(. Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  i.  ch.  v. 
p.  139.)  3 Chesney,  vol.  i.  pp.  53-57. 

4 Ibid.  p.  62. 


Chap.  I.  TRIBUTARIES  OF  THE  EUPHRATES  AND  TIGRIS.  9 

of  more  importance  flow  in  from  the  left — the  Belik  (ancient 
Bilichus),  which  joins  it  in  long.  39°  9';  and  the  Khabour 
(ancient  Habor  or  Chaboras),  which  effects  a junction  in  long. 
40°  30',  lat.  35°  7'.  The  Belik  and  Khabour  collect  the  waters 
which  flow  from  the  southern  flank  of  the  mountain  range 
above  Orfa,  Mardin,  and  Xisibin,  best  known  as  the  “Mons 
Masius  ” of  Strabo.5  They  are  not,  however,  streams  of  equal 
importance.  The  Belik  has  a course  which  is  nearly  straight, 
and  does  not  much  exceed  120  miles.  The  Khabour,  on  the 
contrary,  is  sufficiently  sinuous,  and  its  course  may  be  reckoned 
at  fully  200  miles.  It  is  navigable  by  rafts  from  the  junction 
of  its  two  main  branches  near  the  volcanic  cone  of  Koukab,6 
and  adds  a considerable  body  of  water  to  the  Euphrates.  Below 
its  confluence  with  this  stream,  or  during  the  last  800  miles  of 
its  course,  the  Euphrates  does  not  receive  a single  tributary. 
On  the  contrary,  it  soon  begins  to  give  off  its  waters  right  and 
left,  throwing  out  branches,  which  either  terminate  in  marshes, 
or  else  empty  themselves  into  the  Tigris.  After  a while,  in- 
deed, it  receives  compensation,  by  means  of  the  Shat-el-Hie 
and  other  branch  streams,  which  bring  back  to  it  from  the 
Tigris,  between  Mugheir  and  Kurnah,  the  greater  portion  of 
the  borrowed  fluid.  The  Tigris,  on  the  contrary,  is  largely 
enriched  throughout  the  whole  of  its  course  by  the  waters  of 
tributary  streams.  It  is  formed  originally  of  three  main 
branches : the  Diarbekr  stream,  or  true  Tigris,  the  Myafarekin 
River,  and  the  Bitlis  Chai,  or  Centrites  of  Xenophon,7  which 
carries  a greater  body  than  either  of  the  other  two.8  From  its 
entry  on  the  low  country  near  Jezireh  to  the  termination  of 
its  course  at  Kurnah,  it  is  continually  receiving  from  the  left 
a series  of  most  important  additions.  The  chain  of  Zagros, 
which,  running  parallel  to  the  two  main  streams,  shuts  in  the 
Mesopotamian  plain  upon  the  east,  abounds  with  springs,  which 


5 Strab.  xi.  12,  § 4 ; 14,  § 2,  &c. 

6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  ch.  xv. 
p.  322.  Compare  ch.  xi.  pp.  269,  270. 

7 Xenophon,  Anabasis,  iv.  3,  § 1. 

8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  ch.  iii. 


p.  49.  The  Bitlis  Chai  at  Til,  just  above 
the  point  of  confluence,  was  found  by 
Mr.  Layard  to  be  “about  equal  in  size” 
to  the  united  Myafarekin  and  Diarbekr 
rivers. 


10 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


are  well  supplied  during  the  whole  summer  from  its  snows,9  and 
these  when  collected  form  rivers  of  large  size  and  most  refresh- 
ing coolness.  The  principal  are,  the  eastern  Khabour,  which 
joins  the  Tigris  in  lat.  37°  12' ; the  Upper  Zab,  which  falls  in 
by  the  ruins  of  Nimrud  ; the  Lower  Zab,  which  joins  some  way 
below  Kileh  Sherghat ; the  Adhem,  which  unites  its  waters  half 
way  between  Samarah  and  Baghdad ; and  the  Diyaleh  (ancient 
Gyndes),  which  is  received  between  Baghdad  and  the  ruins  of 
Ctesiphon. 

By  the  influx  of  these  streams  the  Tigris  continues  to  grow  in 
depth  and  strength  as  it  nears  the  sea,  and  becomes  at  last  (as 
we  have  seen)  a greater  river  than  the  Euphrates,  which  shrinks 
during  the  latter  part  of  its  course,  and  is  reduced  to  a volume 
very  inferior  to  that  which  it  once  boasted.  The  Euphrates  at 
its  junction  with  the  Khabour,  700  miles  above  Kurnah,  is  400 
yards  wide  and  18  feet  deep  ; at  Irzah  or  Werdi,  75  miles  lower 
down,  it  is  350  yards  wide  and  of  the  same  depth ; at  Hadiseh, 
140  miles  below  Werdi,  it  is  300  yards  wide,  and  still  of  the 
same  depth;  at  Hit,  50  miles  below  Hadiseh,  its  width  has 
increased  to  350  yards,  but  its  depth  has  diminished  to  16  feet ; 
at  Felujiah,  75  miles  from  Hit,  the  depth  is  20  feet,  but  the 
width  has  diminished  to  250  yards.  From  this  point  the  con- 
traction is  very  rapid  and  striking.  The  Saklawiyeh  canal  is 
given  out  upon  the  left,  and  some  way  further  down  the  Hin- 
diyeh  branches  off  upon  the  right,  each  carrying,  when  the 
Euphrates  is  full,  a large  body  of  water.  The  consequence  is 
that  at  Hillah,  90  miles  below  Felujiah,  the  stream  is  no  more 
than  200  yards  wide  and  15  feet  deep ; at  Diwaniyeh,  65  miles 
further  down,  it  is  only  160  yards  wide ; and  at  Lamlun,  20 
miles  below  Diwaniyeh,  it  is  reduced  to  120  yards  wide,  with  a 
depth  of  no  more  than  12  feet ! Soon  after,  however,  it  begins 
to  recover  itself.  The  water,  which  left  it  by  the  Hindiyeh, 
returns  to  it  upon  the  one  side,  while  the  Shat-el-Hie  and 
numerous  other  branch  streams  from  the  Tigris  flow  in  upon 
the  other  ; but  still  the  Euphrates  never  recovers  itself  entirely, 


0 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Suslana,  p.  308  ; Journal  of  Geograph.  Society , vol.  ix.  p.  95. 


Chap.  I. 


DWINDLING  OF  THE  EUPHEATES. 


II 


nor  even  approaches  in  its  later  course  to  the  standard  of  its 
earlier  greatness.  The  channel  from  Kurnah  to  El  Khitr  was 
found  by  Colonel  Chesney  to  have  an  average  width  of  only 
200  yards,  and  a depth  of  about  18  or  19  feet,10  which  implies  a 
body  of  water  far  inferior  to  that  carried  between  the  junction 
with  the  Khabour  and  Hit.  More  recently,  the  decline  of  the 
stream  in  its  later  course  has  been  found  to  be  even  greater. 
Neglect  of  the  banks  has  allowed  the  river  to  spread  itself  more 
and  more  widely  over  the  land ; and  it  is  said  that,  except  in 
the  flood  time,  very  little  of  the  Euphrates  water  reaches  the 
sea.1  Nor  is  this  an  unprecedented  or  very  unusual  state  of 
things.  From  the  circumstance  (probably)  that  it  has  been 
formed  by  the  deposits  of  streams  flowing  from  the  east  as  well 
as  from  the  north,  the  lower  Mesopotamian  plain  slopes  not  only 
to  the  south,  but  to  the  west.2  The  Euphrates,  which  has  low 
banks,  is  hence  at  all  times  inclined  to  leave  its  bed,  and  to  flow 
off  to  the  right,3  where  large  tracts  are  below  its  ordinary  level. 
Over  these  it  spreads  itself,  forming  the  well-known  4 4 Chaldsean 
marshes,”4  which  absorb  the  chief  portion  of  the  water  that 
flows  into  them,  and  in  which  the  44 great  river”  seems  at 
various  times  to  have  wholly,  or  almost  wholly,  lost  itself.5  No 
such  misfortune  can  befall  the  Tigris,  which  runs  in  a deep  bed, 
and  seldom  varies  its  channel,  offering  a strong  contrast  to  the 
sister  stream.6 

Frequent  allusion  has  been  made,  in  the  course  of  this  descrip- 
tion of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  to  the  fact  of  their  having  each 
a flood  season.  Herodotus  is  scarcely  correct  when  he  says, 
that  in  Babylonia  44  the  river  does  not,  as  in  Egypt,  overflow  the 


10  j Euphrates  Expedition , vol.  i.  pp.  59, 
60. 

1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , ch.- 
xxi.  p.  475 ; Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana, 

p.  45. 

2 Heeren’s  statement,  which  is  directly 
the  reverse  of  this  ( Asiatic  Nations, 
vol.  ii.  p.  131,  E.  T.),  is  at  once  false 
and  self-contradictory.  The  “deep  bed” 
and  “bold  shores”  of  the  Tigris  are 
the  consequence  of  the  higher  level  of 
the  plain  in  its  vicinity.  The  fall  of  the 
Tigris  is  much  greater  than  that  of 


the  Euphrates  in  its  lower  course,  and 
the  stream  cuts  deeper  into  the  alluvium, 
on  the  principle  of  water  finding  its 
own  level. 

3 Loftus,  p.  44. 

4 Arrian,  Exped.  Alex.  vii.  21,  22; 
Strab.  xvi.  1,  §§  II,  12.  The  “ lacus 
Chaldaici  ” of  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  vi.  27) 
refer  rather  to  the  marshes  on  the  Lower 
Tigris.  (See  the  next  page.) 

5 Arrian,  Exped.  Alex.  vii.  7 ; Plin. 
Hist.  Nat.  1.  s.  c. 

6 Arrian,  vii.  21. 


12 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


corn-lands  of  its  own  accord,  but  is  spread  oyer  them  by  the 
help  of  engines.”7  Both  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  rise 
many  feet  each  spring,  and  overflow  their  banks  in  various 
places.  The  rise  is  caused  by  the  melting  of  the  snows  in  the 
mountain  regions  from  which  the  two  rivers  and  their  affluents 
spring.  As  the  Tigris  drains  the  southern,  and  the  Euphrates 
the  northern  side  of  the  same  mountain  range,  the  flood  of  the 
former  stream  is  earlier  and  briefer  than  that  of  the  latter. 
The  Tigris  commonly  begins  to  rise  early  in  March,  and  reaches 
its  greatest  height  in  the  first  or  second  week  of  May,  after 
which  it  rapidly  declines,  and  returns  to  its  natural  level  by 
the  middle  of  June.  The  Euphrates  first  swells  about  the 
middle  of  March,  and  is  not  in  full  flood  till  quite  the  end  of 
May  or  the  beginning  of  June ; it  then  continues  high  for  above 
a month,  and  does  not  sink  much  till  the  middle  of  July,  after 
which  it  gradually  falls  till  September.  The  country  inundated 
by  the  Tigris  is  chiefly  that  on  its  lower  course,  between  the 
32nd  and  31st  parallels,  the  territory  of  the  Beni  Lam  Arabs. 
The  territory  which  the  Euphrates  floods  is  far  more  extensive. 
As  high  up  as  its  junction  with  the  Khabour,  that  stream  is 
described  as,  in  the  month  of  April,  “ spreading  over  the  sur- 
rounding country  like  a sea.”8  From  Hit  downwards  it  inun- 
dates both  its  banks,  more  especially  the  country  above  Baghdad 
(to  which  it  is  carried  by  the  Saklawiyeh  canal),  the  tract  west 
of  the  Birs  Nimrud  and  extending  thence  by  way  of  Nedjif  to 
Samava,  and  the  territory  of  the  Affej  Arabs,  between  the  rivers, 
above  and  below  the  32nd  parallel.  Its  flood  is,  however,  very 
irregular,  owing  to  the  nature  of  its  banks,  and  the  general 
inclination  of  the  plain,  whereof  mention  was  made  above.9  If 
care  is  taken,  the  inundation  may  be  pretty  equally  distri- 
buted on  either  side  of  the  stream ; but  if  the  river  banks  are 
neglected,  it  is  sure  to  flow  mainly  to  the  west,  rendering  the 
whole  country  on  that  side  the  river  a swamp,  and  leaving  the 
territory  on  the  left  bank  almost  without  water.  This  state  of 
things  may  be  traced  historically  from  the  age  of  Alexander  to 


' Herod,  i.  193. 


Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  297. 


See  page  11. 


Chap.  I. 


FLOODING  OF  THE  TWO  RIVERS. 


13 


the  present  day,  and  has  probably  prevailed  more  or  less  since 
the  time  when  Chaldsea  received  its  first  inhabitants. 

The  floods  of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  combine  with  the 
ordinary  action  of  their  streams  upon  their  banks  to  produce  a 
constant  variation  in  their  courses,  which  in  a long  period  of 
time  might  amount  to  something  very  considerable.  It  is 
impossible  to  say,  with  respect  to  any  portion  of  the  alluvial 
plain,  that  it  may  not  at  some  former  period  have  been  the  bed 
of  one  or  the  other  river.  Still  it  would  seem  that,  on  the 
whole,  a law  of  compensation  prevails,  with  the  result  that  the 
general  position  of  the  streams  in  the  valley  is  not  very  different 
now  from  what  it  was  4000  years  ago.  Certainly  between  the 
present  condition  of  things  and  that  in  the  time  of  Alexander, 
or  even  of  Herodotus,  no  great  difference  can  be  pointed  out, 
except  in  the  region  immediately  adjoining  on  the  gulf,  where 
the  alluvium  has  grown,  and  the  streams,  which  were  formerly 
separate,  have  united  their  waters.  The  Euphrates  still  flows 
by  Hit  (Is)  and  through  Babylon ; 10  the  Tigris  passes  near 
Opis,1  and  at  Baghdad  runs  at  the  foot  of  an  embankment  made 
to  confine  it  by  Nebuchadnezzar.2  The  changes  traceable  are 
less  in  the  main  courses  than  in  the  branch  streams,  which  per- 
petually vary,  being  sometimes  left  dry  within  a few  years  of 
the  time  that  they  have  been  navigable  channels.3 

The  most  important  variations  of  this  kind  are  on  the  side  of 
Arabia.  Here  the  desert  is  always  ready  to  encroach ; and  the 
limits  of  Chaldsea  itself  depend  upon  the  distance  from  the  main 
river,  to  which  some  branch  stream  conveys  the  Euphrates 
wrater.  In  the  most  flourishing  times  of  the  country,  a wide  and 
deep  channel,  branching  off  near  Hit,  at  the  very  commence- 
ment of  the  alluvium,  has  skirted  the  Arabian  rock  and  gravel 
for  a distance  of  several  hundred  miles,  and  has  entered  the 


10  Herod,  i.  179,  180. 

1 Ibid.  i.  189 ; Xen.  Anab.  ii.  4,  § 25. 
The  site  of  Opis  is  probably  marked  by 
the  ruins  at  Khafaji.  (See  the  remarks 
of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus , yol.  i.  p.  326,  note8.) 

2 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  Commentary  on 


the  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Assyria 
and  Babylonia,  p.  77,  note. 

3 Loftus,  Chaldeea  and  Susiana , p.  112. 
Some  rather  considerable  changes  in  the 
bed  of  the  Tigris  are  thought  to  be  trace- 
able a little  below  Samarah.  (See  Journal 
of  Geographical  Society , vol.  ix.  p.  472.) 


H 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


Persian  Gulf  by  a mouth  of  its  own.4  In  this  way  the  extent 
of  Chaldsea  has  been  at  times  largely  increased,  a vast  tract 
being  rendered  cultivable,  which  is  otherwise  either  swamp  or 
desert. 

Such  are  the  chief  points  of  interest  connected  with  the  two 
great  Mesopotamian  rivers.  These  form,  as  has  been  already 
observed,  the  only  marked  and  striking  characteristics  of  the 
country,  which,  except  for  them,  and  for  one  further  feature, 
which  now  requires  notice,  would  be  absolutely  unvaried  and 
uniform.  On  the  Arabian  side  of  the  Euphrates,  50  miles  south 
of  the  ruins  of  Babylon,  and  25  or  30  miles  from  the  river,  is  a 
fresh-water  lake  of  very  considerable  dimensions — the  Bahr-i- 
Nedjif,  the  “Assyrium  stagnum”  of  Justin.5  This  is  a natural 
basin,  40  miles  long,  and  from  10  to  20  miles  broad,  enclosed  on 
three  sides  by  sandstone  cliffs,  varying  from  20  to  200  feet  in 
height,  and  shut  in  on  the  fourth  side — the  north-east — by 
a rocky  ridge,  which  intervenes  between  the  valley  of  the 
Euphrates  and  this  inland  sea.  The  cliffs  are  water-worn,  pre- 
senting distinct  indications  of  more  than  one  level  at  which  the 
water  has  rested  in  former  times.6  At  the  season  of  the  inunda- 
tion this  lake  is  liable  to  be  confounded  with  the  extensive 
floods  and  marshes,  which  extend  continuously  from  the  country 
west  of  the  Birs  Nimrud  to  Samava.  But  at  other  times  the 
distinction  between  the  Bahr  and  the  marshes  is  very  evident, 
the  former  remaining  when  the  latter  disappear  altogether,  and 
not  diminishing  very  greatly  in  size  even  in  the  driest  season. 
The  water  of  the  lake  is  fresh  and  sweet,  so  long  as  it  communi- 
cates with  the  Euphrates ; when  the  communication  is  cut  off  it 
becomes  very  unpalatable,  and  those  who  dwell  in  the  vicinity 
are  no  longer  able  to  drink  it.  This  result  is  attributed  to  the 
connexion  of  the  lake  with  rocks  of  the  gypsiferous  series.7 

It  is  obvious  that  the  only  natural  divisions  of  Chaldgea  proper 
are  those  made  by  the  river-courses.  The  principal  tract  must 


4  Shapur  Dholactuf,  in  the  fourth 
century  of  our  era,  either  cut  or  re- 

opened this  canal.  He  is  said  to  have 

intended  it  as  a defence  against  the 

Arabs.  In  Arabian  geography  it  is 


known  as  Khandak  Scibur,  or  “ Shapur’s 
ditch.”  The  present  name  is  Kerreb 
Saideh. 

5 Justin,  xviii.  3,  § 2. 

6 Loftus,  p.  50.  7 Ibid.,  1.  s.  c. 


Chap.  I. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 


15 


always  have  been  that  which  intervenes  between  the  two 
streams.  This  was  anciently  a district  some  300  miles  in  length, 
varying  from  20  to  100  miles  in  breadth,  and  perhaps  averaging 
50  miles,  which  must  thus  have  contained  an  area  of  about 
15,000  square  miles.  The.  tract  between  the  Euphrates  and 
Arabia  was  at  all  times  smaller  than  this,  and  in  the  most 
flourishing  period  of  Chaldsea  must  have  fallen  short  of  10,000 
square  miles. 

We  have  no  evidence  that  the  natural  division  of  Chaldaea 
here  indicated  was  ever  employed  in  ancient  times  for  political 
purposes.  The  division  which  appears  to  have  been  so  employed 
was  one  into  northern  and  southern  Chaldaea,  the  first  extending 
from  Hit  to  a little  below  Babylon,  the  second  from  Niffer  to 
the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  In  each  of  these  districts  we 
have  a sort  of  tetrarchy,  or  special  pre-eminence  of  four  cities, 
such  as  appears  to  be  indicated  by  the  words — “ The  beginning 
of  his  kingdom  was  Babel,  and  Erech,  and  Accad,  and  Calneh, 
in  the  land  of  Shinar.”8  The  southern  tetrarchy  is  composed 
of  the  four  cities,  Ur  or  Hur,  Huruk,  Nipur,  and  Larsa  or 
Larancha,  which  are  probably  identified  with  the  Scriptural 
“ Ur  of  the  Chaldees,”  Erech,  Calneh,  and  Ellasar.9  The  northern 
consists  of  Babel  or  Babylon,  Borsippa,  Cutha,  and  Sippara,  of 
which  all  except  Borsippa  are  mentioned  in  Scripture.10  Besides 
these  cities  the  country  contained  many  others,  as  Chilmad, 
Dur-Kurri-galzu,  Ihi  or  Ahava,  Rubesi,  Duran,  Tel-Humba,  &c. 
It  is  not  possible  at  present  to  locate  with  accuracy  all  these 
places.  We  may,  however,  in  the  more  important  instances,  fix 
either  certainly,  or  with  a very  high  degree  of  probability,  their 
position. 

Hur  or  Ur,  the  most  important  of  the  early  capitals,  was 


8 Gen.  x.  10.  The  sacred  historian  per- 
haps further  represents  the  Assyrians 
as  adopting  the  Babylonian  number  on 
their  emigration  to  the  more  northern 
regions: — “ Out  of  that  land  went  forth 
Asshur,  and  builded  Nineveh,  and  the 
city  Rehoboth,  and  Calah,  and  Resen.” 
(Gen.  x.  11,  12.) 

9 In  three  out  of  these  four  cases,  the 

similarity  of  the  name  forms  a sufficient 


ground  for  the  identification.  In  the 
fourth  case  the  chief  ground  of  identifi- 
cation is  a statement  in  the  Talmud 
that  Nopher  was  the  site  of  the  Calneh 
of  Nimrod. 

10  Sippara  is  the  Scriptural  Sephar- 
vaim.  The  Hebrew  term  has  a dual 
ending,  because  there  were  two  Sipparas, 
one  on  either  side  of  the  river. 


1 6 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap  I.. 


situated  on  the  Euphrates,  probably  at  no  great  distance  from 
its  mouth.  It  was  probably  the  chief  commercial  emporium  in 
the  early  times ; as  in  the  bilingual  vocabularies  its  ships  are 
mentioned  in  connexion  with  those  of  Ethiopia.1  The  name  is 
found  to  have  attached  to  the  extensive  ruins  (now  about  six 
miles  from  the  river,  on  its  right  bank,  and  nearly  opposite  its 
junction  with  the  Shat-el-Hie)  which  are  known  by  the  name  of 
Mugheir,  or  “the  bitumened.” 2 Here,  on  a dead  flat,  broken 
only  by  a few  sand-hills,  are  traces  of  a considerable  town,  con- 
sisting chiefly  of  a series  of  low  mounds,  disposed  in  an  oval 
shape,  the  largest  diameter  of  which  runs  from  north  to  south, 
and  measures  somewhat  more  than  half  a mile.  The  chief 
building  is  a temple,  hereafter  to  be  more  particularly  described, 
which  is  a very  conspicuous  object  even  at  a considerable  dis- 
tance, its  greatest  height  above  the  plain  being  about  seventy 
feet.3  It  is  built  in  a very  rude  fashion,  of  large  bricks,  cemented 
with  bitumen,  whence  the  name  by  which  the  Arabs  designate 
the  ruins. 

About  thirty  miles  from  Hur,  in  a north-westerly  direction, 
and  on  the  other  side  of  the  Euphrates,  from  which  it  is  distant 
eight  or  nine  miles,  are  the  ruins  of  a town,  called  in  the  inscrip- 
tions Larrak,  or  Larsa,  in  which  some  of  the  best  Orientalists 
have  recognised  at  once  the  Biblical  Ellasar,4  the  Laranchse  of 
Berosus,5  and  the  Larissa  of  Apollodorus,  where  the  king  held 
his  court  who  sent  Memnon  to  the  siege  of  Troy.6  The  identi- 
fication is  perhaps  doubtful ; but,  at  any  rate,  we  have  here  the 
remains  of  a second  Chaldsean  capital,  dating  from  the  very 
earliest  times.  The  ruins,  which  bear  now  the  name  of  Sen- 
kereh  or  Sinkara,  consist  of  a low  circular  platform,  about  four 
and  a half  miles  in  circumference,  rising  gradually  from  the 
level  of  the  plain  to  a central  mound,  the  highest  point  of  which 
attains  an  elevation  of  seventy  feet  above  the  plain  itself,  and  is 


1 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  Journal 
of  the  Geographical  Society,  vol.  xxvii. 
p.  185. 

2 Mr.  Taylor,  in  the  Journal  of  the 

Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  p.  260.  Sir  H. 

Rawlinson  prefers  the  derivation  of 


Um-qir , “the  mother  of  bitumen.” 

3 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana , p.  128. 

4 Gen.  xiv.  1. 

5 Beros.  ap.  Syncell.,  Chronographia , 
p.  39. 

6 Apollod.  Bibliotheca , ii.  4,  § 4. 


Chap.  I. 


CHIEF  CITIES  — UR,  NOW  MUGHEIR. 


1 7 


Plan  of  Muglieir  Ruins. 


H H H H.  2946  yards  round. 
a a a.  Platform  on  which  the  house  a is  built, 
d.  House  cleared. 

b.  Pavement  at  edge  of  platform  a,  12  feet  below 
surface. 


c.  Tomb  mound. 

d e g h k l m.  Points  at  which  excavations 
were  made  by  Mr.  Loftus. 
ffff.  Comparatively  open  space  of  very  low 
mounds. 


YOL.  I. 


C 


i8 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


distinctly  visible  from  a distance  of  fifteen  miles.7  The  material 
used  consists  of  the  ordinary  sun-dried  and  baked  bricks ; and 
the  basement  platforms  bear  the  inscriptions  of  the  same  king 
who  appears  to  have  been  the  original  founder  of  the  chief 
buildings  at  Ur  or  Mugheir. 

Fifteen  miles  from  Larsa,  in  a direction  a little  north  of  west, 
and  on  the  same  side  of  the  river,  are  ruins  considerably  more 
extensive  than  those  of  either  Ur  or  Larsa,  to  which  the  natives 
apply  the  name  of  Warka,  which  is  no  doubt  a corruption  of 
the  original  appellation.  The  Erech,  or  Orech,8  of  the  Hebrews, 
which  appears  as  Huruk  in  the  cuneiform  geographical  lists, 
became  known  to  the  Greeks  as  Orchoe;9  and  this  appella- 
tion, probably  continuing  in  use  to  the  time  of  the  Arab 
conquest,  was  then  corrupted  into  Urka  or  Warka,  in  which 
shape  the  name  given  by  Nimrod  still  attaches  to  the  second  of 
his  cities.  The  ruins  stand  in  lat.  31°  19',  long.  45°  40',  about 
four  miles  from  the  nearest  bend  of  the  Euphrates,  on  its  left  or 
east  bank.  They  form  an  irregular  circle,  nearly  six  miles  in 
circumference,  which  is  defined  by  the  traces  of  an  earthen 
rampart,  in  some  places  forty  feet  high.  A vast  mass  of  undu- 
lating mounds,  intersected  by  innumerable  channels  and  ravines, 
extends  almost  entirely  across  the  circular  space,  in  a direction, 
which  is  nearly  north  and  south,  abutting  at  either  end  upon  the 
rampart.  East  and  west  of  this  mass  is  a comparatively  open 
space,  where  the  mounds  are  scattered  and  infrequent;  while 
outside  the  rampart  are  not  only  a number  of  detached  hillocks 
marking  the  site  of  ancient  buildings,  but  in  one  direction — 
towards  the  east — the  city  may  be  traced  continuously  by  means 
of  ruined  edifices,  mounds,  and  pottery,  fully  three  miles  beyond 
the  rampart  into  the  desert.  The  greatest  height  of  the  ruins 
is  about  100  feet ; their  construction  is  very  rude  and  primitive, 
the  date  of  some  buildings  being  evidently  as  early  as  that  of 
the  most  ancient  structures  of  either  Mugheir  or  Senkereh.10 

Sixty  miles  to  the  north-west  of  these  ruins,  still  on  the  left 


' Loftus,  p.  244. 

8 The  LXX  translators  express  the 
Hebrew  by  ’O pex. 


9 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 6 ; Ptol.  v.  20, 
p.  137.  See  also  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat. 
vi.  27.  10  Loftus,  pp.  162-170. 


Chap.  I. 


ERECH,  NOW  WARKA. 


19 


or  eastern  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  but  at  the  distance  of  thirty 
miles  from  its  present  course,  are  the  remains  of  another 


city,  the  only  Chaldsean  ruins  which  can  dispute,  with  those 
already  described,  the  palm  of  antiquity.  They  consist  of 
a number  of  separate  and  distinct  heaps,  which  seem  to  be 

c 2 


20 


THE  FIKST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


the  remains  of  different  buildings,  and  are  divided  into  two 
nearly  equal  groups  by  a deep  ravine  or  channel  120  feet 
wide,  apparently  the  dry  bed  of  a river  which  once  ran 
through  the  town.1  Conspicuous  among  the  other  hillocks  is 
a conical  heap,  occupying  a central  position  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  river-bed,  and  rising  to  the  height  of  about  seventy 
feet  above  the  general  level  of  the  plain.2  Further  on  in  this 
direction  is  a low  continuous  mound,  which  seems  to  be  a 
portion  of  the  outer  wall  of  the  city.  The  ruins  are  of  con- 
siderable extent,  but  scarcely  so  large  as  those  at  either  Sen- 
kereh  or  Warka.  The  name  which  now  attaches  to  them  is 
Niffer  ; and  it  appears,  from  the  inscriptions  at  the  place,  that 
the  ancient  Semitic  appellation  was  but  slightly  different.3  This 
name,  as  read  on  the  bilingual  tablets,  w7 *as  Nipur  ; and  as  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  it  is  this  word  which  appears  in  the 
Talmud  as  Nopher,4  we  are  perhaps  entitled,  on  the  authority 
of  that  treasure-house  of  Hebrew  traditions,  to  identify  these 
ruins  with  the  Calneh  of  Moses,5  and  the  Calno  of  Isaiah.6 

About  sixty-five  miles  from  Niffer,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
Euphrates,  and  in  a direction  only  slightly  north  of  west,  are 
the  remains  of  the  ancient  JBorsippa.  These  consist  of  little 
more  than  the  ruins  of  a single  building — the  great  temple 
of  Merodach — which  was  entirely  rebuilt  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
They  have  been  sometimes  regarded  as  really  a portion  of  the 
ancient  Babylon ; 7 but  this  view  is  wholly  incompatible  with 
the  cuneiform  records,  which  distinctly  assign  to  the  ruins  in 
question  the  name  of  Borsip  or  Borsippa,  a place  known  with 


1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , ch. 
xxiv.  p.  551.  Boats  smeared  with  bitu- 
men, and  similar  to  those  still  in  use 
in  Lower  Mesopotamia,  are  said  to  be 
occasionally  found,  beneath  the  soil,  in 
this  ravine. 

2 Loftus,  p.  101. 

3 In  the  early  Scythic  or  Cushite 

Babylonian  the  name  of  the  city  is 
represented  by  the  same  characters  as 

are  used  for  the  god  Belus,  though  of 

course  with  a different  determinative  ; 

and  it  thus  seems  highly  probable  that 

we  have  the  vernacular  pronunciation 

of  the  name  in  the  BiAfir]  of  Ptolemy, 


which  he  joins  with  Bdfxnra  and 
Aiyova,  precisely  as  in  the  inscriptions 
are  joined  Borsip,  Nipur,  and  Cutha  or 
Tiggaba.  Nipur  is  given  in  the  bilin- 
gual tablets  as  the  Semitic  translation 
of  the  Scythic  Bilu. 

4 See  above,  page  15,  note  9. 

5 Gen.  x.  10.  6 Isaiah  x.  9. 

7 Rich,  Second  Memoir  on  Babylon , 
p.  32 ; Heeren,  Asiatic  Nations,  vol.  ii. 
p.  172;  Ker  Porter,  Travels,  vol.  ii.  p. 
379.  See  also  Oppert’s  map,  entitled 
“ Babylon  Antiqua,”  in  his  Expedition 
scientifique  en  Mesopotamie,  Paris,  Gide, 
1858. 


Chap.  I. 


SECONDARY  CITIES. 


21 


certainty  to  have  been  distinct  from,  though  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of,  the  capital.8  A remnant  of  the  ancient  name  appears 
to  be  contained  in  the  modern  appellation,  Birs-Nimrud  or 
Birs-i-Nimrud,  which  does  not  admit  of  any  explanation  from 
the  existing  language  of  the  country.9 

Fifteen  miles  from  hence,  to  the  north-east,  chiefly  but  not 
entirely  on  the  left  or  east  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  are  the 
remains  of  “ Babylon  the  Great,”  which  have  been  so  frequently 
described  by  travellers,  that  little  need  be  said  of  them  in  this 
place.  The  chief  ruins  cover  a space  about  three  miles  long, 
and  from  one  to  two  broad,  and  consist  mainly  of  three  great 
masses : the  first  a square  mound,  called  “ Babil  ” by  the  Arabs, 
lying  towards  the  north  at  some  distance  from  the  other  remains ; 
the  second  or  central  mound,  a pile  called  the  “ Kasr  ” or 
Palace ; and  the  third,  a great  irregular  heap  lying  towards  the 
south,  known  as  the  “ mound  of  Amram,”  from  a tomb  which 
crowns  its  summit.  The  “Kasr”  and  “Amram”  mounds  are 
enclosed  within  two  lines  of  rampart,  lying  at  right  angles  to 
each  other,  and  forming,  with  the  river,  a sort  of  triangle,  within 
which  all  the  principal  ruins  are  comprised,  except  the  mound 
called  “ Babil.”  Beyond  the  rampart,  towards  the  north,  south, 
and  east,  and  also  across  the  river  to  the  west,  are  various  smaller 
detached  ruins,  while  the  whole  ground,  in  every  direction,  is 
covered  with  fragments  of  brick  and  with  nitre,  the  sure  marks 
of  former  habitations. 

The  other  cities  of  ancient  Chaldsea  which  may  be  located 
with  an  approach  to  certainty,  are  Cutha,  now  Ibrahim,  fifteen 
miles  north-east  by  north  of  Hymar ; Sippara  or  Sepharvaim, 
which  was  at  Sura,  near  Mosaib  on  the  Euphrates,  about  twenty 
miles  above  Babylon  by  the  direct  route  ; and  Dur-Kurri-galzu, 
now  Akkerkuf,  on  the  Saklawiyeh  canal,  six  miles  from  Baghdad, 
and  thirty  from  Mosaib,  in  a direction  a little  west  of  north. 
Ihi,  or  Ahava,  is  probably  Hit,  ninety  miles  above  Mosaib,  on 
the  right  bank  of  the  river ; Chilmad  may  be  Kalwadha,  near 
Baghdad ; and  Bubesi  is  perhaps  Zerghul,  near  the  left  bank  of 


8 Berosus,  Fr.  14;  Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 7 ; Justin,  xii.  13;  Steph.  Byz.  ad  voc. 

9 Rich,  First  Memoir , p.  34,  note. 


22 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


the  Shat-el-Hie,  a little  above  its  confluence  with  the  Euphrates. 
Chaldsean  cities  appear  likewise  to  have  existed  at  Hymar,  ten 
miles  from  Babylon  towards  the  east;  at  Sherifeh  and  Im 
Khithr,  south  and  south-east  of  Hymar ; at  Zibbliyeh,10  on  the 
line  of  the  Nil  canal,  fifteen  miles  north-west  of  Niffer;  at 
Delayhim  and  Bismiya,  in  the  Affej  marshes,  beyond  Niffer,  to 


Akkerkuf. 


the  south-east ; at  Phara  and  Jidr,  in  the  same  region,  to  the 
south-west  and  south-east  of  Bismiya;  at  Hammam,11  sixteen 
miles  south-east  of  Phara,  between  the  Affej  and  the  Shatra 
marshes ; at  Tel-Ede,  six  miles  from  Hammam,  to  the  south- 
south-west  ; at  Tel-Medineh  and  Tel-Sifr,  in  the  Shatra  marshes, 


,0  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p. 
569.  Mr.  Loftus  suggests  that  the  re- 
mains here  are  of  a later  date.  (Chaldeea 
and  Susiana,  p.  85.)  Sir  H.  Rawlinson 
regards  the  existing  buildings  at  Akker- 
kuf and  Hammam  as  also  of  the  Parthian 


age,  though  occupying  the  sites  of  earlier 
Chaldaean  cities. 

11  Hammam  is  thought  to  he  the 
Gulaba  of  the  Cuneiform  Inscriptions 
(Loftus,  p.  113);  but  this  identification 
is  uncertain. 


Chap.  I. 


SECONDARY  CITIES. 


23 


to  the  south-east  of  Tel-Ede  and  the  north-east  of  Senkereh ; 
at  Yokha,  east  of  Hammam,  and  Nuffdyji,  north  of  Warka ; at 


Hammam. 

Lethami,  near  Niffer ; at  Iskhuriyeh,  north  of  Zibbliyeh,  near 
the  Tigris ; at  Tel  Kheir  and  Tel  Dhalab,  in  the  upper  part  of 


Tel-Ede. 


24  THE  FIRST  MONARCHY.  Chap.  1 

the  all  avium,  to  the  north  of  Akkerkuf ; at  Duair,  on  the  right 
hank  of  the  Euphrates,  south  of  Hilleh  and  south-east  of  the 
Birs  Nimrud  ; at  Jeb  Mehari,  south  of  the  Bahr-i-Nedjif ; at 
Mai  Battush,  near  Swaje ; at  Tel-el-Lahm,  nine  or  ten  miles 
south  of  Suk-es-Sheioukh,  and  at  Abu  Shahrein,  in  the  same 
neighbourhood,  on  the  very  border  of  the  Arabian  desert.1 
Further  investigation  will  probably  add  largely  to  this  catalogue, 
for  many  parts  of  Babylonia  are  still  to  some  extent  unexplored. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  tract  between  the  Shat-el-Hie  and 
the  lower  Tigris,2  a district  which,  according  to  the  geographers, 
abounds  with  ruins.  No  doubt  the  most  extensive  and  most 
striking  of  the  old  cities  have  been  visited ; for  of  these  Euro- 
peans are  sure  to  hear  through  the  reports  of  natives.  But  it 
is  more  than  probable  that  a number  of  the  most  interesting 
sites  remain  unexplored,  and  even  unvisited ; for  these  are  not 
always  either  very  extensive  or  very  conspicuous.  The  process 
of  gradual  disintegration  is  continually  lowering  the  height  of 
the  Chaldsean  ruins ; and  depressed  mounds  are  commonly  the 
sign  of  an  ancient  and  long-deserted  city.3  Such  remains  give 
us  an  insight  into  the  character  of  the  early  people,  which  it  is 
impossible  to  obtain  from  ruins  where  various  populations  have 
raised  their  fabrics  in  succession  upon  the  same  spot. 

The  cities  here  enumerated  may  not  perhaps,  in  all  cases, 
have  existed  in  the  Chaldaean  period.  The  evidence  hitherto 
obtained  connects  distinctly  with  that  period  only  the  following 
— Babylon,  Ur  or  Hur,  Larrak  or  Larsa,  Erech  or  Huruk, 
Calneh  or  Nopher,  Sippara,  Dur-Kurri-galzu,  Chilmad,  and  the 
places  now  called  Abu  Shahrein  and  Tel  Sifr.4  These  sites,  it 
will  be  observed,  were  scattered  over  the  whole  territory  from 
the  extreme  south  almost  to  the  extreme  north,  and  show  the 
extent  of  the  kingdom  to  have  been  that  above  assigned  to  it.5 
They  are  connected  together  by  a similarity  in  building  arrange- 


1  See  Fraser’s  Mesopotamia  and  As- 
syria, pp.  150-155 ; Ainsworth’s  Re- 
searches in  Mesopotamia,  p.  127  and 

p.  177;  Ross  and  Lynch,  in  Journal  of 

Geographical  Society , vol.  ix.  pp.  443  et 

seq.;  Loftus’  Chaldoea  and  Susiana , pas- 

sim ; and  Journal  of  Geographical  Society , 


vol.  xxvi.  pp.  133-144. 

2 This  district  has  been  visited  by 
Mr.  Taylor,  but  its  marshy  character 
makes  it  very  difficult  to  explore  at  all 
completely. 

3 Loftus,  Chaldoea  and  Susiana , p.  251. 

4 Ibid.  p.  435.  5 See  page  3. 


Chap.  I. 


BORDER  COUNTRIES  — ARABIA,  ASSYRIA. 


25 


.ments  and  materials,  in  language,  in  form  and  type  of  writing, 
and  sometimes  in  actual  names  of  monarchs.  The  most  ancient, 
apparently,  are  those  towards  the  south,  at  Warka,  Senkereh, 
Mugheir,  and  Niffer;  and  here,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  sea, 
which  then  probably  reached  inland  as  far  as  Suk-es-Sheioukh, 
there  is  sufficient  reason  to  place  the  primitive  seat  of  Chaldsean 
power.  The  capital  of  the  whole  region  was  at  first  Ur  or  Hur, 
but  afterwards  became  Nipur,  and  finally  Babel  or  Babylon. 

The  geography  of  Chaldsea  is  scarcely  complete  without  a 
glance  at  the  countries  which  adjoin  upon  it.  On  the  west, 
approaching  generally  within  twenty  or  thirty  miles  of  the 
present  course  of  the  Euphrates,  is  the  Arabian  desert,  consisting 
in  this  place  of  tertiary  sands  and  gravels,  having  a general 
elevation  of  a few  feet  above  the  Mesopotamian  plain,  and 
occasionally  rising  into  ridges  of  no  great  height,  whose  direction 
is  parallel  to  the  course  of  the  great  stream.  Such  are  the 
Hazem  and  the  Qassaim,  in  the  country  between  the  Bahr-i- 
Nedjif  and  the  Persian  Gulf,  low  pebbly  ridges  which  skirt  the 
valley  from  the  Bahr  to  below  Suk  -es-Sheioukh.  Further  west 
the  desert  becomes  more  stony,  its  surface  being  strewn  with 
numerous  blocks  of  black  granite,  from  which  it  derives  its 
appellation  of  Hejerra.6  No  permanent  streams  water  this 
region;  occasional  “wadys”  or  torrent-courses,  only  full  after 
heavy  rains,  are  found ; but  the  scattered  inhabitants  depend  for 
water  chiefly  on  their  wells,  which  are  deep  and  numerous,  but 
yield  only  a scanty  supply  of  a brackish  and  unpalatable  fluid. 
No  settled  population  can  at  any  time  have  found  subsistence 
in  this  region,  which  produces  only  a few  dates,  and  in  places  a 
poor  and  unsucculent  herbage.  Sandstorms  are  frequent,  and 
at  times  the  baleful  simoom  sweeps  across  the  entire  tract, 
destroying  with  its  pestilential  breath  both  men  and  animals.7 

Towards  the  north  Chaldsea  adjoined  upon  Assyria.  From 
the  foot  of  that  moderately  lofty  range  already  described,8  which 
the  Greeks  called  Masius,  and  the  modern  Turks  know  as  Jebel 
Tur  and  Karajah  I)agh,  extends,  for  above  300  miles,  a plain  of 

6 See  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  I 7 See  the  elder  Niebuhr’s  Description 

Society , vol.  xv.  p.  404.  j de  V Arabic,  pp.  7,  8.  8 See  p.  9. 


2 6 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


low  elevation,  slightly  undulating  in  places,  and  crossed  about 
its  centre  by  an  important  limestone  ridge,  known  as  the  Sinjar 
hills,  which  have  a direction  nearly  east  and  west,  beginning 
about  Mosul,  and  terminating  a little  below  Rakkah.  This 
tract  differs  from  the  Chaldaean  lowland,  by  being  at  once  less 
flat  and  more  elevated.  Geologically  it  is  of  secondary  forma- 
tion, while  Chaldsea  proper  is  tertiary  or  post-tertiary.  It  is 
fairly  watered  towards  the  north,  but  below  the  Sinjar  is  only 
very  scantily  supplied.  In  modern  times  it  is  for  nine  months 
in  the  year  a desert,  but  anciently  it  was  well  inhabited,  means 
having  apparently  been  found  to  bring  the  whole  into  cultiva- 
tion. As  a complete  account  of  this  entire  region  must  be  given 
in  another  part  of  the  present  volume,  this  outline  (it  is  thought) 
may  suffice  for  our  present  purpose. 

Eastward  of  Chaldsea,  separated  from  it  by  the  Tigris,  which 
in  its  lower  course  is  a stream  of  more  body  than  the  Euphrates, 
was  the  country  known  to  the  Jews  as  Elam,9  to  the  early 
Greeks  as  Cissia,1  and  to  the  later  Greeks  as  Susis  or  Susiana.2 
This  territory  comprised  a portion  of  the  mountain  country 
which  separates  Mesopotamia  from  Persia ; but  it  was  chiefly 
composed  of  the  broad  and  rich  flats  intervening  between  the 
mountains  and  the  Tigris,  along  the  courses  of  the  Kerkhah, 
Euran,  and  Jerahi  rivers.  It  was  a rich  and  fertile  tract,  re- 
sembling Chaldsea  in  its  general  character,  with  the  exception 
that  the  vicinity  of  the  mountains  lent  it  freshness,  giving  it 
cooler  streams,  more  frequent  rains,  and  pleasanter  breezes. 
Capable  of  maintaining  with  ease  a dense  population,  it  wras 
likely,  in  the  early  times,  to  be  a powerful  rival  to  the 
Mesopotamian  kingdom,  over  which  we  shall  find  that  in  fact 
it  sometimes  exercised  supremacy. 

On  the  south  Chaldsea  had  no  neighbour.  Here  a spacious 
sea,  with  few  shoals,  land-locked,  and  therefore  protected  from 
the  violent  storms  of  the  Indian  Ocean,  invited  to  commerce, 
offeriug  a ready  communication  with  India  and  Ceylon,  as  well 
as  with  Arabia  Felix,  Ethiopia,  and  Egypt.  It  is  perhaps  to 

9 Dan.  viii.  2.  1 iEschylus,  Persce , 123 ; Herodotus,  v.  52. 

2 Strabo,  xv.  3,  § 12. 


Chap.  I. 


MARITIME  ‘POSITION  OF  CHALDA3A. 


27 


this  circumstance  of  her  geographical  position,  as  much  as  to 
any  other,  that  ancient  Chaldaea  owes  her  superiority  over  her 
neighbours,  and  her  right  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  five 
great  monarchies  of  the  ancient  world.  Commanding  at  once 
the  sea,  which  reaches  here  deep  into  the  land,  and  the  great 
rivers  by  means  of  which  the  commodities  of  the  land  were 
most  conveniently  brought  down  to  the  sea,  she  lay  in  the  high- 
way of  trade,  and  could  scarcely  fail  to  profit  by  her  position. 
There  is  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  Ur,  the  first  capital, 
was  a great  maritime  emporium ; and  if  so,  it  can  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  to  commerce  and  trade,  at  the  least  in  part,  the 
early  development  of  Chaldsean  greatness  was  owing. 


28 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


CHAPTER  II. 


CLIMATE  AND  PRODUCTIONS. 

“ Ager  totius  Asias  fertilissimus.” — Plin.  H.  N.  vi.  26. 

Lower  Mesopotamia,  or  Chaldma,  which  lies  in  the  same 
latitude  with  Central  China,  the  Punjab,  Palestine,  Marocco, 
Georgia,  Texas,  and  Central  California,  has  a climate  the 
warmth  of  which  is  at  least  equal  to  that  of  any  of  those 
regions.  Even  in  the  more  northern  part  of  the  country,  the 
district  about  Baghdad,  the  thermometer  often  rises  during 
the  summer  to  120°  of  Fahrenheit  in  the  shade; 1 and  the  in- 
habitants are  forced  to  retreat  to  their  serdabs  or  cellars,2 
where  they  remain  during  the  day,  in  an  atmosphere  which,  by 
the  entire  exclusion  of  the  sun’s  rays,  is  reduced  to  about  100°. 
Lower  down  the  valley,  at  Zobair,  Busrah,  and  Mohammrah, 
the  summer  temperature  is  still  higher ; 3 and,  owing  to  the 
moisture  of  the  atmosphere,  consequent  on  the  vicinity  of 
the  sea,  the  heat  is  of  that  peculiarly  oppressive  character 
which  prevails  on  the  sea-coast  of  Hindustan,  in  Ceylon,  in  the 
West  Indian  islands,  at  New  Orleans,  and  in  other  places  whose 
situation  is  similar.  The  vital  powers  languish  under  this 
oppression,  which  produces  in  the  European  a lassitude  of  body 
and  a prostration  of  mind  that  wholly  unfit  him  for  active  duties! 
On  the  Asiatic,  however,  these  influences  seem  to  have  little 
effect.  The  Cha’b  Arabs,  who  at  present  inhabit  the  region,  are 
a tall  and  warlike  race,  strong-limbed,  and  muscular ; 4 they 
appear  to  enjoy  the  climate,  and  are  as  active,  as  heallhy,  and 
as  long-lived  as  any  tribe  of  their  nation.  But  if  man  by  long 
residence  becomes  thoroughly  inured  to  the  intense  heat  of 


1 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana , p.  9. 

2 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol.i. 

p.  106. 

3 Loftus,  p.  280.  This  traveller  found 


the  temperature  at  Mohammrah,  in 
June,  1850,  to  rise  often  to  124°  of 
Fahrenheit  in  the  shade. 

4 Ibid.  p.  285. 


Chap.  II.  CLIMATE  OF  CHALD MA  — TEMPERATURE. 


29 


these  regions,  it  is  otherwise  with  the  animal  creation.  Camels 
sicken,  and  birds  are  so  distressed  by  the  high  temperature  that 
they  sit  in  the  date-trees  about  Baghdad,  with  their  mouths 
open,  panting  for  fresh  air.5 

The  evils  proceeding  from  a burning  temperature  are  aug- 
mented in  places  under  the  influence  of  winds,  which,  arising 
suddenly,  fill  the  air  with  an  impalpable  sand,  sometimes  circling 
about  a point,  sometimes  driving  with  furious  force  across  a wide 
extent  of  country.  The  heated  particles,  by  their  contact  with 
the  atmosphere,  increase  its  fervid  glow,  and,  penetrating  by 
the  nose  and  mouth,  dry  up  the  moisture  of  the  tongue, 
parch  the  throat,  and  irritate  or  even  choke  the  lungs.6  Earth 
and  sky  are  alike  concealed  by  the  dusty  storm,  through  which 
no  object  can  be  distinguished  that  is  removed  many  yards  ; a 
lurid  gleam  surrounds  the  traveller,  and  seems  to  accompany 
him  as  he  moves  ; every  landmark  is  hid  from  view  ; and  to  the 
danger  of  suffocation  is  added  that  of  becoming  bewildered  and 
losing  all  knowledge  of  the  road.  Such  are  the  perils  encoun- 
tered in  the  present  condition  of  the  country.  It  may  be  doubted, 
however,  if  in  the  times  with  which  we  are  here  concerned  the 
evils  just  described  had  an  existence.  The  sands  of  Chaldsea, 
which  are  still  progressive  and  advancing,  seem  to  have  reached 
it  from  the  Arabian  Desert,  to  which  they  properly  belong: 
year  by  year  the  drifts  gain  upon  the  alluvium,  and  threaten 
to  spread  over  the  whole  country.7  If  we  may  calculate  the 
earlier  by  the  present  rate  of  progress,  we  must  conclude  that 
anciently  these  shifting  sands  had  at  any  rate  not  crossed  the 
Euphrates. 

If  the  heat  of  summer  be  thus  fierce  and  trying,  the  cold  of 
winter  must  be  pronounced  to  be  very  moderate.  Frost,  indeed, 
is  not  unknown  in  the  country  ; 8 but  the  frosts  are  only  slight. 
Keen  winds  blow  from  the  north,  and  in  the  morning  the  ground 
is  often  whitened  by  the  congelation  of  the  dew ; the  Arabs, 
impatient  of  a low  temperature,  droop  and  flag ; but  there  is  at 

5 Loftus,  p.  9,  note.  I 8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , 1.  s.  c. ; 

6 Ibid.  p.  241 ; Layard,  Nineveh  and  Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  73 ; 

Babylon , p.  546.  7 Loftus,  pp.  81,  82.  \ Fraser,..  Travels,  vol.  ii.  pp.  37  and  47. 


30 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


no  time  any  severity  of  cold ; ice  rarely  forms  in  tlie  marshes  ; 
snow  is  unknown ; and  the  thermometer,  even  on  the  grass, 
does  not  often  sink  below  30°.  The  Persian  kings  passed  their 
winter  in  Babylon,  on  account  of  the  mildness  of  the  climate ; 
and  Indian  princes,  expelled  from  the  Peninsula,  are  wont,  from 
a similar  cause,  to  fix  their  residence  at  Busrah  or  Baghdad. 
The  cold  of  which  travellers  speak  is  relative  rather  than 
positive.  The  range  of  the  thermometer  in  Lower  Chaldaea  is 
perhaps  100°,  whereas  in  England  it  is  scarcely  80° ; there  is 
thus  a greater  difference  between  the  heat  of  summer  and  the 
cold  of  winter  there  than  here ; but  the  actual  greatest  cold — 
that  which  benumbs  the  Arabs  and  makes  them  fall  from  their 
horses 9 — is  no  more  than  we  often  experience  in  April,  or  even 
in  May. 

The  rainy  season  of  Chaldsea  is  in  the  winter  time.  Heavy 
showers  fall  in  November,  and  still  more  in  December,  which 
sensibly  raise  the  level  of  the  rivers.1  As  the  spring  advances 
the  showers  become  lighter  and  less  frequent ; but  still  they 
recur  from  time  to  time,  until  the  summer  sets  in,  about  May. 
Prom  May  to  November  rain  is  very  rare  indeed.  The  sky 
continues  for  weeks  or  even  months  without  a cloud ; and  the 
sun’s  rays  are  only  tempered  for  a short  time  at  morning  and  at 
evening  by  a grey  mist  or  haze.  It  is  during  these  months  that 
the  phenomenon  of  the  mirage  is  most  remarkable.  The  strata 
of  air,  unequally  heated,  and  therefore  differing  in  rarity, 
refract  the  rays  of  light,  fantastically  enlarging  and  distorting 
the  objects  seen  through  them,  which  frequently  appear  raised 
from  the  ground  and  hanging  in  mid-air,  or  else,  by  a repetition 
of  their  image,  which  is  reflected  in  a lower  stratum,  give  the 
impression  that  they  stand  up  out  of  a lake.  Hence  the  delu- 
sion which  has  so  often  driven  the  traveller  to  desperation — 
the  “ image  of  a cool  rippling  watery  mirror,” 2 which  flies 


9 Mr.  Loftus  tells  us  that  he  has  seen 
this  effect  of  the  cold. 

1 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  331,  note8;  Rich, 
First  Memoir,  p.  13;  Chesney,  Euphrates 


Expedition,  vol.  i.  pp.  38,  39,  and  61, 
62. 

2 Humboldt,  Aspects  of  Nature,  vol.  i. 
p.  18.  See,  for  the  fact,  Layard,  Nineveh 
and  Babylon,  p.  549;  Loftus,  p.  113, 


Chap.  II. 


FERTILITY  AND  WEALTH  OF  CHALDiEA. 


31 


before  him  as  he  advances,  and  at  once  provokes  and  mocks 
his  thirst. 

The  fertility  of  Chaldma  in  ancient  times  was  proverbial. 
“ Of  all  countries  that  we  know,”  says  Herodotus,  “ there  is  none 
that  is  so  fruitful  in  grain.  It  makes  no  pretension,  indeed,  of 
growing  the  fig,  the  olive,  the  vine,  or  any  other  tree  of  the 
kind ; but  in  grain  it  is  so  fruitful  as  to  yield  commonly  two 
hundred-fold,  and  when  the  production  is  at  the  greatest,  even 
three  hundred-fold.  The  blade  of  the  wheat-plant  and  of  the 
barley-plant  is  often  four  fingers  in  breadth.  As  for  the  millet 
and  the  sesame,  I shall  not  say  to  what  height  they  grow, 
though  within  my  own  knowledge ; for  I am  not  ignorant  that 
what  I have  already  written  concerning  the  fruitfulness  of  Baby- 
lonia must  seem  incredible  to  those  who  have  not  visited  the 
country.” 3 Theophrastus,  the  disciple  of  Aristotle,  remarks — 
“ In  Babylon  the  wheat-fields  are  regularly  mown  twice,  and 
then  fed  off  with  beasts,  to  keep  down  the  luxuriance  of  the 
leaf;  otherwise  the  plant  does  not  run  to  ear.  When  this  is 
done,  the  return,  in  lands  that  are  badly  cultivated,  is  fifty-fold ; 
while,  in  those  that  are  well  farmed,  it  is  a hundred-fold.” 4 
Strabo  observes — “ The  country  produces  barley  on  a scale  not 
known  elsewhere,  for  the  return  is  said  to  be  three  hundred-fold. 
All  other  wants  are  supplied  by  the  palm,  which  furnishes  not 
only  bread,  but  wine,  vinegar,  honey,  and  meal.” 5 Pliny  follows 
Theophrastus,  with  the  exception  that  he  makes  the  return  of 
the  wheat-crop,  where  the  land  is  well  farmed,  a hundred  and 
fifty-fold.6  The  wealth  of  the  region  was  strikingly  exhibited 
by  the  heavy  demands  which  were  made  upon  it  by  the  Persian 
kings,  as  well  as  by  the  riches  which,  notwithstanding  these 
demands,  were  accumulated  in  the  hands  of  those  who  adminis- 
tered its  government.  The  money-tribute  paid  by  Babylonia 
and  Assyria  to  the  Persians  was  a thousand  talents  of  silver 
(nearly  a quarter  of  a million  of  our  money)  annually ; 7 while 


3 Herodotus,  i.  193. 

4 Theophrast.  Hist.  Plant,  viii.  7. 

5 Strabo,  xvi.  1,  § 14.  Compare  Xen. 

Anab.  ii.  3,  §§  14-16. 


6 Pliny,  Hist.  Hat.  xviii.  17. 

7 Herodotus,  iii.  92.  If  we  set  aside 
the  Indian  gold  tribute,  this  was  one- 
ninth  of  the  whole  tribute  of  the  empire. 


32 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


CHAr.  II. 


the  tribute  in  kind  was  reckoned  at  one- third  part  of  the  contri- 
butions of  the  whole  empire.8  Yet,  despite  this  drain  on  its 
resources,  the  government  was  regarded  as  the  best  that  the 
Persian  king  had  to  bestow,  and  the  wealth  accumulated  by 
Babylonian  satraps  was  extraordinary.  Herodotus  tells  us  of  a 
certain  Tritantaechmes,  a governor,  who,  to  his  own  knowledge, 
derived  from  his  province  nearly  two  bushels  of  silver  daily ! 
This  fortunate  individual  had  a stud  of  sixteen  thousand  mares, 
with  a proportionate  number  of  horses.9  Another  evidence  of 
the  fertility  of  the  region  may  be  traced  in  the  fear  of  Artaxerxes 
Mnemon,  after  the  battle  of  Cunaxa,  lest  the  Ten  Thousand 
should  determine  to  settle  permanently  in  the  vicinity  of  Sittace 
upon  the  Tigris.1  Whatever  opinion  may  be  held  as  to  the  exact 
position  of  this  place,  and  of  the  district  intended  by  Xenophon, 
it  is  certain  that  it  was  in  the  alluvial  plain,2  and  so  contained 
within  the  limits  of  the  ancient  Chaldsea. 

Modern  travellers,  speaking  of  Chaldaea  in  its  present  con- 
dition, express  themselves  less  enthusiastically  than  the  ancients ; 
but,  on  the  whole,  agree  with  them  as  to  the  natural  capabilities 
of  the  country.  44  The  soil,”  says  one  of  the  most  judicious,  “ is 
extremely  fertile,  producing  great  quantities  of  rice,  dates,  and 
grain  of  different  kinds,  though  it  is  not  cultivated  to  above  half 
the  degree  of  which  it  is  susceptible.” 3 “ The  soil  is  rich,”  says 

another,  44  not  less  bountiful  than  that  on  the  banks  of  the 
Egyptian  Nile.”4  44  Although  greatly  changed  by  the  neglect 
of  man,”  observes  a third,  44  those  portions  of  Mesopotamia  which 
are  still  cultivated,  as  the  country  about  Hillah,  show  that  the 
region  has  all  the  fertility  ascribed  to  it  by  Herodotus.”5  There 
is  a general  recognition  of  the  productive  qualities  of  the  dis- 
trict, combined  with  a general  lamentation  over  the  existing 


8 Herodotus,  i.  192.  This  proportion 
appears  excessive.  Perhaps  Babylonia 
really  supplied  one-third  of  the  grain 
which  the  court  consumed. 

9 Ibid.  1.  s.  c. 

1 Xen.  Anab.  ii.  4,  § 22. 

2 Ibid.  § 13.  Compare  Ainsworth, 
Retreat  of  the  Ten  Thousand , pp.  105- 
114.  He  regards  the  district  intended 


as  that  between  the  Shat-Eidha  and  the 
bend  of  the  Tigris,  in  lat.  34°.  I should 
place  it  lower  down,  below  Baghdad, 
near  the  ruins  of  Ctesiphon. 

3 Rich,  First  Memoir , p.  12. 

4 Loftus,  Chaldaea  and  Susiana,  p.  14. 

5 Chesney , Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  ii. 

p.  602. 


Chap.  II. 


MODERN  NEGLECT  OF  CULTIVATION. 


33 


neglect  and  apathy  which  allow  sncli  gifts  of  Nature  to  run  to 
waste.  Cultivation,  we  are  told,  is  now  the  exception,  instead 
of  the  rule.  “Instead  of  the  luxuriant  fields,  the  groves  and 
gardens  of  former  times,  nothing  now  meets  the  eye  but  an  arid 
waste.”6  Many  parts  of  Chaldsea,  naturally  as  productive  as 
any  others,  are  at  present  pictures  of  desolation.  Large  tracts 
are  covered  by  unwholesome  marshes,  producing  nothing  but 
enormous  reeds;  others  lie  waste  and  bare,  parched  up  by  the 
fierce  heat  of  the  sun,  and  utterly  destitute  of  water ; in  some 
places,  as  has  been  already  mentioned,  sand-drifts  accumulate, 
and  threaten  to  make  the  whole  region  a mere  portion  of  the 
desert. 

The  great  cause  of  this  difference  between  ancient  and  modern 
Chaldaea  is  the  neglect  of  the  wrater-courses.  Left  to  them- 
selves, the  rivers  tend  to  desert  some  portions  of  the  alluvium 
wholly,  which  then  become  utterly  unproductive;  while  they 
spread  themselves  out  over  others,  which  are  converted  thereby 
into  pestilential  swamps.  A well-arranged  system  of  embank- 
ments and  irrigating  canals  is  necessary  in  order  to  develop  the 
natural  capabilities  of  the  country,  and  to  derive  from  the  rich 
soil  of  this  vast  alluvium  the  valuable  and  varied  products  which 
it  can  be  made  to  furnish. 

Among  the  natural  products  of  the  region  two  stand  out  as 
pre-eminently  important — the  wheat-plant  and  the  date-palm. 
According  to  the  native  tradition,7  wheat  was  indigenous  in 
Chaldsea ; and  the  first  comers  thus  found  themselves  provided 
by  the  bountiful  hand  of  Nature  with  the  chief  necessary  of  life. 
The  luxuriance  of  the  plant  was  excessive.  Its  leaves  were  as 
broad  as  the  palm  of  a man’s  hand,  and  its  tendency  to  grow 
leaves  was  so  great  that  (as  we  have  seen8)  the  Babylonians  used 
to  mow  it  twice  and  then  pasture  their  cattle  on  it  for  a while, 
to  keep  down  the  blade  and  induce  the  plant  to  run  to  ear.  The 
ultimate  return  was  enormous : on  the  most  moderate  com- 
putation 9 it  amounted  to  fifty-fold  at  the  least,  and  often  to  a 


6 Loftus,  1.  s.  c.  7 Berosus,  Fr.  1.  8 See  p.  31. 

9 That  of  Theophrastus,  the  professed  naturalist.  See  above,  p.  31,  note  4. 

VOL.  I.  D 


34 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


hundred-fold.  The  modern  Oriental  is  content,  even  in  the  case 
of  a rich  soil,  with  a ten-fold  return.1 

The  date-palm  was  at  once  one  of  the  most  valuable  and  one 
of  the  most  ornamental  products  of  the  country.  “Of  all 
vegetable  forms,”  says  the  greatest  of  modern  naturalists,  t(  the 
palm  is  that  to  which  the  prize  of  beauty  has  been  assigned  by 


Palms. 


the  concurrent  voice  of  nations  in  all  ages.”2  And  though  the 
date-palm  is  in  form  perhaps  less  graceful  and  lovely  than  some 
of  its  sister  species,  it  possesses  in  the  dates  themselves  a beauty 
which  they  lack.  These  charming  yellow  clusters,  semi-trans- 
parent, which  the  Greeks  likened  to  amber,3  and  moderns  com- 
pare to  gold,4  contrast,  both  in  shape  and  tint,  with  the  green 


1 Geograph . Journ.  vol.  ix.  p.  27.  Com- 
pare Niebuhr,  Description  de  l’ Arabic, 

p.  134. 

2 Humboldt,  Aspects  of  Nature,  vol.  ii. 


p.  20,  E.  T. 

3 Xen.  Anab.  ii.  3,  § 15  ; Philostrat. 
Vit.  Apollon.  Tgan.  i.  21. 

4 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana , p.  25. 


Chap.  II. 


BEAUTY  OF  THE  DATE-PALM. 


35 


feathery  branches  beneath  whose  shade  they  hang,  and  give  a 
richness  to  the  landscape  they  adorn  which  adds  greatly  to  its 
attractions.  And  the  utility  of  the  palm  has  been  at  all  times 
proverbial.  A Persian  poem  celebrated  its  three  hundred  and 
sixty  uses.5  The  Greeks,  with  more  moderation,  spoke  of  it  as 
furnishing  the  Babylonians  with  bread,  wine,  vinegar,  honey, 
groats,  string  and  ropes  of  all  kinds,  firing,  and  a mash  for 
fattening  cattle.6  The  fruit  was  excellent,  and  has  formed  at  all 
times  an  important  article  of  nourishment  in  the  country.  It 
was  eaten  both  fresh  and  dried,  forming  in  the  latter  case  a 
delicious  sweetmeat.7  The  wine,  “ sweet  but  headachy,” 8 was 
probably  not  the  spirit  which  it  is  at  present  customary  to  distil 
from  the  dates,  but  the  slightly  intoxicating  drink  called  lagby 
in  North  Africa,  which  may  be  drawn  from  the  tree  itself  by 
decapitating  it,  and  suffering  the  juice  to  flow.9  The  vinegar 
was  perhaps  the  same  fluid  corrupted,  or  it  may  have  been 
obtained  from  the  dates.  The  honey  was  palm-sugar,  likewise 
procurable  from  the  sap.  How  the  groats  were  obtained  we 
do  not  know ; but  it  appears  that  the  pith  of  the  palm  wras 
eaten  formerly  in  Babylonia,  and  was  thought  to  have  a very 
agreeable  flavour.10  Bopes  were  made  from  the  fibres  of  the 
bark ; and  the  wood  was  employed  for  building  and  furniture.1 
It  was  soft,  light,  and  easily  worked,  but  tough,  strong,  and 
fibrous.2 

The  cultivation  of  the  date-palm  was  widely  extended  in 
Chaldaea,  probably  from  very  early  times.  The  combination  of 
sand,  moisture,  and  a moderately  saline  soil,  in  which  it  delights,3 
was  there  found  in  perfection,  more  especially  in  the  lower 
country,  which  had  but  recently  been  reclaimed  from  the  sea. 
Even  now,  when  cultivation  is  almost  wholly  laid  aside,  a thick 
forest  of  luxuriant  date-trees  clothes  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates 


5 Strabo,  xvi.  1,  § 14.  6 Ibid. 

7 Xen.  Anab.  1.  s.  c.  “ The  peasantry 
in  Babylonia  now  principally  subsist  on 

dates  pressed  into  cakes.”  Rich,  First 
Memoir , p.  59,  note. 

8 'HSu  v,  Ke(pa\a\yes  8e.  Xen. 

Anab.  1.  s.  c. 


9 Hamilton’s  Wanderings  in  North 
Africa , ch.  xiv.  pp.  189,  190. 

10  Xen.  Anab.  ii.  3,  § 16. . 

1 Theophrast.  Hist.  Plant,  ii.  7 ; p.  66. 

2 Ibid.  v.  4 and  6. 

3 Theophrast.  Hist . Plant,  ii.  7 ; p. 
64 ; Plin.  H.  N.  xiii.  4. 


3$ 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


on  either  side,  from  the  vicinity  of  Mugheir  to  its  embouchure 
at  the  head  of  the  Persian  Gulf.4  Anciently  the  tract  was  much 
more  generally  wooded  with  them.  “ Palm-trees  grow  in  num- 
bers over  the  whole  of  the  flat  country,”  says  one  of  the  most 
observant  and  truthful  of  travellers — Herodotus.5  According  to 
the  historians  of  Julian,  a forest  of  verdure  extended  from  the 
upper  edge  of  the  alluvium,  which  he  crossed,  to  Mesene  and 
the  shores  of  the  sea.6  When  the  Arabian  conquerors  settled 
themselves  in  the  lower  country,  they  were  so  charmed  with  the 
luxuriant  vegetation  and  the  abundant  date-groves,  that  they 
compared  the  region  with  the  country  about  Damascus,  and 
reckoned  it  among  their  four  earthly  paradises.7  The  propaga- 
tion of  the  date-palm  was  chiefly  from  seed.  In  Chaldsea,  how- 
ever, it  was  increased  sometimes  from  suckers  or  offshoots  thrown 
up  from  the  stem  of  the  old  tree ; 8 at  other  times  by  a species 
of  cutting,  the  entire  head  being  struck  off  with  about  three  feet 
of  stem,  notched,  and  then  planted  in  moist  ground.9  Several 
varieties  of  the  tree  were  cultivated ; but  one  was  esteemed  above 
all  the  rest,  both  for  the  size  and  flavour  of  the  fruit.  It  bore 
the  name  of  “ Royal,”  and  grew  only  in  one  place  near  Babylon.10 

Besides  these  two  precious  products,  Chaldsea  produced  ex- 
cellent barley,  millet,  sesame,  vetches,  and  fruits  of  all  kinds.1  It 
was,  however,  deficient  in  variety  of  trees,  possessing  scarcely 
any  but  the  palm  and  the  cypress.  Pomegranates,  tamarisks, 
poplars,  and  acacias  are  even  now  almost  the  only  trees  be- 
sides the  two  above  mentioned,  to  be  found  between  Samarah 
and  the  Persian  Gulf.  The  tamarisk  grows  chiefly  as  a shrub 
along  the  rivers,  but  sometimes  attains  the  dimensions  of  a 
tree,  as  in  the  case  of  the  “ solitary  tree  ” still  growing  upon 
the  ruins  of  Babylon.2  The  pomegranates  with  their  scarlet 
flowers,  and  the  acacias  with  their  light  and  graceful  foliage, 


4 Loftus,  Chaldoea  and  Susiana,  p.  127 
and  p.  277 ; Ainsworth,  Travels  in  the 
Track  of  the  Ten  Thousand,  p.  105. 

5 Herod,  i.  193. 

6 Amm.  Marc.  xxiv.  3;  Zosim.  iii. 
pp.  173-9. 

7 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  Journal  of 

the  Geographical  Society,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  186. 


8 Theophrast.  Hist.  Plant,  ii.  2 ; p.  53. 

9 Ibid.  ii.  7 ; p.  64. 

10  Ibid.  p.  67. 

1 Berosus,  Fr.  1,  § 2;  Herod,  i.  193. 

2 Rich,  First  Memoir,  p.  26  ; Heeren, 
Asiatic  Nations,  vol.  ii.  p.  158;  Ains- 
worth, Researches  in  Assyria,  Babylonia, 
and  Chaldoea,  p.  125. 


Chap.  II. 


USE  OF  FEEDS  FOR  HOUSES  AND  BOATS. 


37 


ornament  the  banks  of  the  streams,  generally  intermingled 
with  the  far  more  frequent  palm,  while  oranges,  apples, 
pears,  and  vines  are  successfully  cultivated  in  the  gardens  and 
orchards. 


Chaldee  an  reeds,  from  an  Assyrian  sculpture  (after  Layard). 

Among  the  vegetable  products  of  Chaldaea  must  be  noticed,  as 
almost  peculiar  to  the  region,  its  enormous  reeds.  These,  which 
are  represented  with  much  spirit  in  the  sculptures  of  Senna- 
cherib, cover  the  marshes  in  the  summer-time,  rising  often  to 


38 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


the  height  of  fourteen  or  fifteen  feet.3  The  Arabs  of  the  marsh 
region  form  their  houses  of  this  material,  binding  the  stems  of 
the  reeds  together,  and  bending  them  into  arches,  to  make 
the  skeleton  of  their  buildings ; while,  to  form  the  walls, 
they  stretch  across  from  arch  to  arch  mats  made  of  the 
leaves.  From  the  same  fragile  substance  they  construct  their 
terradas  or  light  boats,  which,  when  rendered  waterproof  by 
means  of  bitumen,  will  support  the  weight  of  three  or  four 
men.4 

In  mineral  products  Chaldsea  w'as  very  deficient  indeed.  The 
alluvium  is  wholly  destitute  of  metals,  and  even  of  stone,  which 
must  be  obtained,  if  wanted,  from  the  adjacent  countries.  The 
neighbouring  parts  of  Arabia  could  furnish  sandstone  and  the 
more  distant  basalt ; which  appears  to  have  been  in  fact  transported 
occasionally  to  the  Chaldsean  cities.5  Probably,  however,  the  chief 
importation  of  stone  was  by  the  rivers,  whose  waters  would  readily 
convey  it  to  almost  any  part  of  Chaldsea  from  the  regions  above 
the  alluvium.  This  we  know  to  have  been  done  in  some  cases; 6 
but  the  evidence  of  the  ruins  makes  it  clear  that  such  importa- 
tion was  very  limited.  The  Chaldseans  found,  in  default  of  stone, 
a very  tolerable  material  in  their  own  country ; which  produced 
an  inexhaustible  supply  of  excellent  clay,  easily  moulded  into 
bricks,  and  not  even  requiring  to  be  baked  in  order  to  fit  it  for 
the  builder.  Exposure  to  the  heat  of  the  summer  sun  hardened 
the  clay  sufficiently  for  most  purposes,  while  a few  hours  in  a 
kiln  made  it  as  firm  and  durable  as  freestone,  or  even  granite. 
Chaldsea,  again,  yielded  various  substances  suitable  for  mortar. 
Calcareous  earths  abound  on  the  western  side  of  the  Euphrates 
towards  the  Arabian  frontier ; 7 while  everywhere  a tenacious 
slime  or  mud  is  easily  procurable,  which,  though  imperfect  as  a 
cement,  can  serve  the  purpose,  and  has  the  advantage  of  being 
always  at  hand.  Bitumen  is  also  produced  largely  in  some 


3 Ainsworth,  ’Researches , p.  129 ; 
Layard,  Nineoeh  and  Babylon , p.  553. 
Mr.  Loftus  says  “ 12  or  14  feet.”  ( Chal - 
deea  and  Susiana,  p.  105.) 

4 Layard,  pp.  522-524. 

5 Ibid.  p.  528. 


6 Xenophon  states  that  millstones 
were  supplied  to  Babylon  from  a place 
which  he  calls  Pylae  (Felujiah  ?),  on  the 
middle  Euphrates.  ( Anah . i.  5,  § 5.) 

7 Rich,  First  Memoir , p.  65. 


Chap.  II. 


WILD  BEASTS. 


39 


parts,  particularly  at  Hit,  where  are  the  inexhaustible  springs 
which  have  made  that  spot  famous  in  all  ages.8  Naphtha  and 
bitumen  are  here  given  forth  separately  in  equal  abundance ; 
and  these  two  substances,  boiled  together  in  certain  proportions, 
form  a.  third  kind  of  cement,  superior  to  the  slime  or  mud,  but 
inferior  to  lime-mortar.  Petroleum,  called  by  the  Orientals 
mumia,  is  another  product  of  the  bitumen-pits.9 

The  wild  animals  indigenous  in  Babylonia  appear  to  be 
chiefly  the  following : — the  lion,  the  leopard,  the  hysena,  the 
lynx,  the  wild-cat,  the  wolf,  the  jackal,  the  wild-boar,  the 
buffalo,  the  stag,  the  gazelle,  the  jerboa,  the  fox,  the  hare, 
the  badger,  and  the  porcupine.  The  Mesopotamian  lion  is  a 
noble  animal.  Taller  and  larger  than  a Mount  St.  Bernard  dog, 
he  winders  over  the  plains  their  undisputed  lord,  unless  when  an 
European  ventures  to  question  his  pre-eminence.  The  Arabs 
tremble  at  his  approach,  and  willingly  surrender  to  him  the 
choicest  of  their  flocks  and  herds.  Unless  urged  by  hunger,  he 
seldom  attacks  man,  but  contents  himself  with  the  destruction 
of  buffaloes,  camels,  dogs,  and  sheep.  When  taken  young,  he  is 
easily  tamed,  and  then  manifests  considerable  attachment  to. his 
master.1  In  his  wild  state  he  haunts  the  marshes  and  the  banks 
of  the  various  streams  and  canals,  concealing  himself  during  the 
day,  and  at  night  wandering  abroad  in  search  of  his  prey,  to 
obtain  which  he  will  approach  with  boldness  to  the  very  skirts 
of  an  Arab  encampment.  His  roar  is  not  deep  or  terrible,  but 
like  the  cry  of  a child  in  pain,  or  the  first  wail  of  the  jackal 
after  sunset,  only  louder,  clearer,  and  more  prolonged.  Two 


8 Thothmes  III.  brought  bitumen 
from  Hit  to  Egypt  about  b.c.  1400. 
(See  Sir  G.  Wilkinson’s  Historical  Notice 
of  Egypt  in  the  author’s  Herodotus , 
vol.  ii.  p.  360.)  Herodotus  mentions 
Hit  as  the  great  place  for  bitumen, 
about  b.c.  450  (Herod,  i.  179).  Isidore 
of  Charax  takes  notice  of  its  bitumen- 
springs,  about  b.c.  150  (Mans.  Earth. 

p.  5).  Shortly  afterwards  its  name  was 
made  to  include  a notice  of  the  bitumen; 
and  thus  it  is  called  Ihi-da-kira  in  the 
Talmud,  Idi-cara  in  Ptolemy,  and  Dacira 
by  the  historians  of  Julian — kier  or  ghier 


( ) ^eing  the  Arabic  term  for  bitu- 


men. 

9 Rich,  First  Memoir,  pp.  63-4. 

1 Mr.  Layard  gives  an  amusing  ac- 
count of  a tame  lion  which  was  given 
him  by  Osman  Pasha,  commandant  of 
Hillah  (Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  487).  Sir  H. 
Rawlinson  had  a tame  lion  for  some 
years  at  Baghdad,  which  was  much 
attached  to  him,  and  finally  died  at  his 
feet,  not  suffering  the  attendants  to 
remove  him. 


40 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


varieties  of  the  lion  appear  to  exist : the  one  is  maneless,  while 
the  other  has  a long  mane,  which  is  black  and  shaggy.  The 
former  is  now  the  more  common  in  the  country ; but  the  latter, 
which  is  the  fiercer  of  the  two,2  is  the  one  ordinarily  represented 
upon  the  sculptures.  The  lioness  is  nearly  as  much  feared  as 
the  lion ; when  her  young  are  attacked,  or  when  she  has  lost 
them,  she  is  perhaps  even  more  terrible.  Her  roar  is  said  to  be 
deeper  and  far  more  imposing  than  that  of  the  male.3 


Wild-sow  and  pigs,  from  Koyunjik. 


The  other  animals  require  but  few  remarks.  Gazelles  are 
plentiful  in  the  more  sandy  regions ; buffaloes  abound  in  the 
marshes  of  the  south,  where  they  are  domesticated,  and  form  the 
chief  wealth  of  the  inhabitants  ; 4 troops  of  jackals  are  common, 
while  the  hyaena  and  wolf  are  comparatively  rare ; the  wild-boar 
frequents  the  river  banks  and  marshes,  as  depicted  in  the  Assy- 
rian sculptures  ; hares  abound  in  the  country  about  Baghdad  ; 
porcupines  and  badgers  are  found  in  most  places;  leopards, 
lynxes,  wild-cats,  and  deer,  are  somewhat  uncommon. 

Chaldsea  possesses  a great  variety  of  birds.  Falcons,  vultures, 
kites,  owls,  hawks  and  crows  of  various  kinds,  francolins  or 


2 The  inhabitants  call  the  maneless 

lions  “ true  believers,”  those  with  manes 
ghaours  or  “ infidels.”  The  former,  they 

say,  will  spare  a Mussulman  if  he  prays, 
the  latter  never.  (Layard,  Nin.  and 
Bab.  p.  487,  note.)  A similar  distinc- 


tion, I learn  from  Sir  Gardner  Wilkin- 
son, is  made  at  Cairo  between  the  green 
and  the  black  crocodile. 

3 Loftus,  Chaldoea  and  Susiana,  p.  259. 

4 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p. 
566. 


Chap.  If* 


BIRDS  — FISH  — DOMESTIC  ANIMALS. 


41- 


black  partridges,  pelicans,  wild-geese,  ducks,  teal,  cranes,  herons, 
kingfishers,  and  pigeons,  are  among  the  most  common.  The 
sand-grouse  (Pterocles  arenarius)  is  occasionally  found,  as  also 
are  the  eagle  and  the  bee-eater.  Fish  are  abundant  in  the 
rivers  and  marshes,  principally  barbel  and  carp,  which  latter 
grow  to  a great  size  in  the  Euphrates..  Barbel  form  an  im- 
portant element  in  the  food  of  the  Arabs  inhabiting  the  Affej 
marshes,  who  take  them  commonly  by  means  of  a fish-spear.5 
In  the  Shat-el-Arab,  which  is  wholly  within  the  influence  of  the 
tides,  there  is  a species  of  goby,  which  is  amphibious.  This 
fish  lies  in  myriads  on  the  mud-banks  left  uncovered  by  the 
ebb  of  the  tide,  and  moves  with  great  agility  on  the  ap- 
proach of  birds.  Nature  seems  to  have  made  the  goby  in 
one  of  her  most  freakish  moods.  It  is  equally  at  home  in 
the  earth,  the  air,  and  the  water  ; and  at  different  times 
in  the  day  may  be  observed  swimming  in  the  stream,  basking 
upon  the  surface  of  the  tidal  banks,  and  burrowing  deep  in  the 
mud.6 

The  domestic  animals  are  camels,  horses,  buffaloes,  cows  and 
oxen,  goats,  sheep,  and  dogs.  The  most  valuable  of  the  last- 
mentioned  are  greyhounds,  which  are  employed  to  course  the 
gazelle  and  the  hare.  The  camels,  horses,  and  buffaloes  are  of 
superior  quality ; but  the  cows  and  oxen  seem  to  be  a very 
inferior  breed.7  The  goats  and  the  sheep  are  small,  and  yield  a 
scanty  supply  of  a somewhat  coarse  wool.8  Still  their  flocks 
and  herds  constitute  the  chief  wealth  of  the  people,  who  have 
nearly  forsaken  the  agriculture  which  anciently  gave  Chaldsea  its 
pre-eminence,  and  have  relapsed  very  generally  into  a nomadic 
or  semi-nomadic  condition.  The  insecurity  of  property  con- 
sequent upon  bad  government  has  in  a great  measure  caused 
this  change,  which  renders  the  bounty  of  Nature  useless,  and 
allows  immense  capabilities  to  run  to  waste.  The  present  con- 
dition of  Babylonia  gives  a most  imperfect  idea  of  its  former 
state,  which  must  be  estimated  not  from  modern  statistics,  but 


5 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  567.  I 7 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  i. 

6 Ainsworth,  Researches,  pp.  135,  136;  j p.  108. 

Fraser,  Mesopotamia  and  Assyria,  p.  373.  j 8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  566. 


42 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


from  the  accounts  of  ancient  writers  and  the  evidences  which 
the  country  itself  presents.  From  them  we  conclude  that  this 
region  was  among  the  most  productive  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth,  spontaneously  producing  some  of  the  best  gifts  of  God  to 
man,  and  capable,  under  careful  management,  of  being  made 
one  continuous  garden. 


Chap.  III. 


EARLY  INHABITANTS. 


43 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  PEOPLE. 

“ A mighty  nation,  an  ancient  nation.” — Jerem.  v.  15. 


That  the  great  alluvial  plain  at  the  mouth  of  the  Euphrates 
and  Tigris  was  among  the  countries  first  occupied  by  man  after 
the  Deluge,  is  affirmed  by  Scripture,1  and  generally  allowed  by 
writers  upon  ancient  history.2  Scripture  places  the  original 
occupation  at  a time  when  language  had  not  yet  broken  up 
into  its  different  forms,  and  when,  consequently,  races,  as  we 
now  understand  the  term,  can  scarcely  have  existed.  It  is  not, 
however,  into  the  character  of  these  primeval  inhabitants  that 
we  have  here  to  inquire,  but  into  the  ethnic  affinities  and  cha- 
racteristics of  that  race,  whatever  it  was,  which  first  established 
an  important  kingdom  in  the  lower  part  of  the  plain — a 
kingdom  which  eventually  became  an  empire.  According  to 
the  ordinary  theory,  this  race  was  Aramaic  or  Semitic.  “ The 
name  of  Aramaeans,  Syrians,  or  Assyrians,”  says  Niebuhr,  “ com- 
prises the  nations  extending  from  the  mouth  of  the  Euphrates 
and  Tigris  to  the  Euxine,  the  river  Halys,  and  Palestine.  They 
applied  to  themselves  the  name  Aram,  and  the  Greeks  called 
them  Assyrians,  which  is  the  same  as  Syrians  (?).  Within  that 
great  extent  of  country  there  existed,  of  course,  various  dialectic 
differences  of  language ; and  there  can  be  little  doubt  but  that 
in  some  places  the  nation  was  mixed  with  other  races.” 3 The 
early  inhabitants  of  Lower  Mesopotamia,  however,  he  considers 
to  have  been  pure  Aramaeans,  closely  akin  to  the  Assyrians, 
from  whom,  indeed,  he  regards  them  as  only  separate  politically.4 


1 Gen.  xi.  1-9. 

2 Heeren,  Asiatic  Nations,  vol.  ii. 

p.  130;  Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  Journal 

of  the  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  p.  232 ; 
Vaux,  Nineveh  and  Persepolis,  p.  6 ; 
Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  ii. 
p.  18 ; Lenormant,  Histoire  ancienne  de 


l'  Orient,  vol.  ii.  p.  5 ; &c. 

3 Niebuhr,  Lectures  on  Ancient  His- 
tory, vol.  i.  p.  12,  E.  T. 

4 Ibid.  p.  11 : “We  shall  begin  with 
the  Assyrians  ; but  with  those  of  Baby- 
lon ; not,  like  Justin,  with  those  of 
Nineveh.” 


44 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


Similar  views  are  entertained  by  most  modem  writers.5 
Baron  Bunsen,  in  one  of  his  latest  works,6  regards  the  fact  as 
completely  established  by  the  results  of  recent  researches  in 
Babylonia.  Professor  M.  Muller,  though  expressing  himself 
with  more  caution,  inclines  to  the  same  conclusion.7  Popular 
works,  in  the  shape  of  Cyclopaedias  and  short  general  histories, 
diffuse  the  impression.  Hence  a difficulty  is  felt  with  regard  to 
the  Scriptural  statement  concerning  the  first  kingdom  in  these 
parts,  which  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  Cushite  or  Ethiopian. 
“ And  Gush  begat  Nimrod : (he  began  to  be  a mighty  one  in  the 
earth ; he  was  a mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord ; wherefore  it  is 
said,  Even  as  Nimrod,  the  mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord ;)  and 
the  beginning  of  his  kingdom  was  Babel,  and  Erech,  and  Accad, 
and  Calneh,  in  the  land  of  Shinar.” 8 According  to  this  passage 
the  early  Chaldaeans  should  be  Hamites,  not  Semites — Ethio- 
pians, not  Aramaeans  ; they  should  present  analogies  and  points 
of  connexion  with  the  inhabitants  of  Egypt  and  Abyssinia,  of 
Southern  Arabia  and  Mekran,  not  with  those  of  Upper  Mesopo- 
tamia, Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Palestine.  It  will  be  one  of  the 
objects  of  this  chapter  to  show  that  the  Mosa'ical  narrative 
conveys  the  exact  truth — a truth  alike  in  accordance  with  the 
earliest  classical  traditions,  and  with  the  latest  results  of  modern 
comparative  philology. 

It  will  be  desirable,  however,  before  proceeding  to  establish 
the  correctness  of  these  assertions,  to  examine  the  grounds  on 
which  the  opposite  belief  has  been  held  so  long  and  so  con- 
fidently. Heeren  draws  his  chief  argument  from  the  supposed 
character  of  the  language.  Assuming  the  form  of  speech  called 
Chaldee  to  be  the  original  tongue  of  the  people,  he  remarks 
that  it  is  “ an  Aramaean  dialect,  differing  but  slightly  from  the 
proper  Syriac.”9  Chaldee  is  known  partly  from  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  in  which  it  is  used  occasionally,1  partly  from  the 


5 Heeren,  As.  Nat.  vol.  ii.  p.  145 ; 
Prichard,  Physical  History  of  Mankind , 
vol.  iv.  p.  568 ; Kitto,  Biblical  Cyclo- 
paedia, vol.  i.  p.  275. 

6 Philosophy  of  Universal  History, 

vol.  i.  p.  193. 


7 Languages  of  the  Seat  of  War , pp. 
24, '25  (first  edition). 

8 Gen.  x.  8-10.  9 As.  Nat.  1.  s.  c. 

1 The  portions  of  the  Old  Testament 

written  in  the  so-called  Chaldee  are 
Ezra,  iv.  8 to  vi.  18,  and  vii,  12-26  ; 


Chap.  III. 


SEMITIC  THEORY  EXAMINED. 


45 


Targums  (or  Chaldaean  paraphrases  of  different  portions  of  the 
Sacred  Volume),  some  of  which  belong  to  about  the  time  of  the 
Apostles,  and  partly  from  the  two  Talmuds,  or  collections  of 
Jewish  traditions,  made  in  the  third  and  fifth  centuries  of  our 
era.  It  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  the  language  of 
Babylon  at  the  time  of  the  Captivity,  which  the  Jews,  as 
captives,  were  forced  to  learn,  and  which  thenceforth  took  the 
place  of  their  own  tongue.  But  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether 
this  is  a true  account  of  the  matter.  The  Babylonian  language 
of  the  age  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  found  to  be  far  nearer  to 
Hebrew  than  to  Chaldee,  which  appears  therefore  to  be  mis- 
named, and  to  represent  the  western  rather  than  the  eastern 
Aramaic.  The  Chaldee  argument  thus  falls  to  the  ground ; 
but  in  refuting  it  an  admission  has  been  made  which  may  be 
thought  to  furnish  fully  as  good  proof  of  early  Babylonian 
Semitism  as  the  rejected  theory. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Babylonian  language  in  the  time  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  found  to  be  far  nearer  to  Hebrew  than  to 
Chaldee.  It  is,  in  fact,  very  close  indeed  to  the  Hebrew.  The 
Babylonians  of  that  period,  although  they  did  not  speak  the 
tongue  known  to  modern  linguists  as  Chaldee,  did  certainly 
employ  a Semitic  or  Aramaean  dialect,  and  so  far  may  be  set 
down  as  Semites.  And  this  is  the  ground  upon  which  such 
modern  philologists  as  still  maintain  the  Semitic  character  of 
the  primitive  Chaldaeans  principally  rely.2  But  it  can  be 
proved,  from  the  inscriptions  of  the  country,  that  between  the 
date  of  the  first  establishment  of  a Chaldaean  kingdom  and  the 
reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  language  of  Lower  Mesopotamia 
underwent  an  entire  change.  To  whatever  causes  this  may  have 
been  owing — a subject  which  will  be  hereafter  investigated 3 — 
the  fact  is  certain ; and  it  entirely  destroys  the  force  of  the 
argument  from  the  language  of  the  Babylonians  at  the  later 
period. 

Another  ground,  and  that  which  seems  to  have  had  the  chief 


Daniel,  ii.  4 to  vii.  28 ; and  Jeremiah, 
x.  10.  There  is  also  a Chaldee  gloss  in 
Genesis,  xxxi.  47. 

2 Bunsen,  Philosophy  of  Universal 


History,  pp.  193  and  201 ; Muller, 
Languages,  &c.  1.  s.  c. 

3 See  below,  ch.  iv.  pp.  61-69. 


46 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


weight  with  Niebuhr,  is  the  supposed  identity  or  intimate  con- 
nexion of  the  Babylonians  with  the  Assyrians.  That  the  latter 
people  were  Semites  has  never  been  denied ; and,  indeed,  it  is 
a point  supported  by  such  an  amount  of  evidence  as  renders  it 
quite  unassailable.  If,  therefore,  the  primitive  Babylonians 
were  once  proved  to  be  a mere  portion  of  the  far  greater 
Assyrian  nation,  locally  and  politically,  but  not  ethnically 
separate  from  them,  their  Semitic  character  would  thereupon  be 
fully  established.  Now  that  this  was  the  belief  of  Herodotus 
must  be  at  once  allowed.  Not  only  does  that  writer  regard  the 
later  Babylonians  as  Assyrians — “ Assyrians  of  Babylon,”  as  he 
expresses  it 4 — and  look  on  Babylonia  as  a mere  “ district  of 
Assyria,” 5 but,  by  adopting  the  mythic  genealogy,  which  made 
Ninus  the  son  of  Belus,6  he  throws  back  the  connexion  to  the 
very  origin  of  the  two  nations,  and  distinctly  pronounces  it  a 
connexion  of  race.  But  Herodotus  is  a very  weak  authority 
on  the  antiquities  of  any  nation,  even  his  own ; and  it  is  not 
surprising  that  he  should  have  carried  back  to  a remote  period 
a state  of  things  which  he  saw  existing  in  his  own  age.  If  the 
later  Babylonians  were,  in  manners  and  customs,  in  religion 
and  in  language,  a close  counterpart  of  the  Assyrians,  he  would 
naturally  suppose  them  descended  from  the  same  stock.  It  is 
his  habit  to  transfer  back  to  former  times  the  condition  of 
things  in  his  own  day.  Thus  he  calls  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Peloponnese  before  the  Dorian  invasion  “Dorians,”7  regards 
Athens  as  the  second  city  in  Greece  when  Croesus  sent  his 
embassies,8  and  describes  as  the  ancient  Persian  religion  that 
corrupted  form  which  existed  under  Artaxerxes  Longimanus.9 
He  is  an  excellent  authority  for  what  he  had  himself  seen,  or 
for  what  he  had  laboriously  collected  by  inquiry  from  eye- 
witnesses; but  he  had  neither  the  critical  acumen  nor  the 
linguistic  knowledge  necessary  for  the  formation  of  a trust- 
worthy opinion  on  a matter  belonging  to  the  remote  history  of  a 
distant  people.  And  the  opinion  of  Herodotus  as  to  the  ethnic 
identity  of  the  two  nations  is  certainly  not  confirmed  by  other 

4 Herod,  i.  177.  5 Ibid.  ch.  106.  6 Ibid.  ch.  7.  7 Ibid.  vi.  53. 

8 Ibid.  i.  56.  9 Ibid.  iii.  16. 


Chap.  III.  CUSHITE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CHALDEANS. 


47 


ancient  writers.  Berosns  seems  to  have  very  carefully  dis- 
tinguished between  the  Assyrians  and  the  Babylonians  or 
Chaldseans,  as  may  be  seen  even  through  the  doubly-distorting 
medium  of  Polyhistor  and  the  Armenian  Eusebius.1  Diodorus 
Siculus  made  the  two  nations  separate  and  hostile  in  very  early 
times.2  Pliny  draws  a clear  line  between  the  “ Chaldsean  races,” 
of  which  Babylon  was  the  head,  and  the  Assyrians  of  the  region 
above  them.3  Even  Herodotus  in  one  place  admits  a certain 
amount  of  ethnic  difference ; for,  in  his  list  of  the  nations 
forming  the  army  of  Xerxes,  he  mentions  the  Chaldseans  as 
serving  with,  but  not  included  among,  the  Assyrians.4 

The  grounds,  then,  upon  which  the  supposed  Semitic  character 
of  the  ancient  Chaldaeans  has  been  based,  fail,  one  and  all ; and 
it  remains  to  consider  whether  we  have  data  sufficient  to  justify 
us  in  determinately  assigning  them  to  any  other  stock. 

Now  a large  amount  of  tradition — classical  and  other — brings 
Ethiopians  into  these  parts,  and  connects,  more  or  less  dis- 
tinctly, the  early  dwellers  upon  the  Persian  G-ulf  with  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Nile  valley,  especially  with  those  upon  its 
upper  course.  Homer,  speaking  of  the  Ethiopians,  says  that 
they  were  “ divided ,”  and  dwelt  “ at  the  ends  of  earth,  towards  the 
setting  and  the  rising  sun .” 5 This  passage  has  been  variously 
apprehended.  It  has  been  supposed  to  mean  the  mere  division 
of  the  Ethiopians  south  of  Egypt  by  the  river  Xile,  whereby 
some  inhabited  its  eastern  and  some  its  western  bank.6  Again, 
it  has  been  explained  as  referring  to  the  east  and  west  coasts  of 
Africa,  both  found  by  voyagers  to  be  in  the  possession  of 
Ethiopians,  who  were  “ divided  ” by  the  vast  extent  of  continent 
that  lay  between  them.7  But  the  most  satisfactory  explanation 
is  that  which  Strabo  gives  from  Ephorus,8  that  the  Ethiopians 
were  considered  as  occupying  all  the  south  coast  both  of  Asia 
and  Africa,  and  as  “ divided  ” by  the  Arabian  Gulf  (which  sepa- 
rated the  two  continents)  into  eastern  and  western — Asiatic  and 


1 Euseb.  Chron.  Can.  i.  4 and  5 ; pp. 
17-21  ; ed.  Mai. 

2 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  1,  § 7. 

3 Plin.  H.  N.  vi.  26. 

4 Herod,  vii.  63. 


5 Horn.  Od.  i.  23,  24— 

Al0iWas,  to!  5 L\0a  SeSaiarai,  ecr^arot  avSpiov, 
Oi  p.ev  SvaofjLevov  'Ynepiovos,  oi  S’  avioi/ros. 

6 Strab.  i.  2,  § 25.  7 Ibid.  § 26. 

8 Ibid.  §§  26-31. 


48 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


African.  This  was  an  “old  opinion”  of  the  Greeks,  we  are 
told ; and,  though  Strabo  thinks  it  indicated  their  ignorance, 
we  may  perhaps  be  excused  for  holding  that  it  might  not  im- 
probably have  arisen  from  real,  though  imperfect,  knowledge. 

The  traditions  with  respect  to  Memnon  serve  very  closely  to 
connect  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  with  the  country  at  the  head  of 
the  Persian  Gulf.  Memnon,  King  of  Ethiopia,  according  to 
Hesiod 9 and  Pindar,1  is  regarded  by  iEschylus  as  the  son  of  a 
Cissian  woman,2  and  by  Herodotus  and  others  as  the  founder 
of  Susa.3  He  leads  an  army  of  combined  Susianians  and 
Ethiopians  to  the  assistance  of  Priam,  his  father’s  brother,  and, 
after  greatly  distinguishing  himself,  perishes  in  one  of  the 
battles  before  Troy.4  At  the  same  time  he  is  claimed  as  one  of 
their  monarchs  by  the  Ethiopians  upon  the  Nile,5  and  identified 
by  the  Egyptians  with  their  king,  Amunopli  III.,6  whose  statue 
became  known  as  “the  vocal  Memnon.”  Sometimes  his  expe- 
dition is  supposed  to  have  started  from  the  African  Ethiopia, 
and  to  have  proceeded  by  way  of  Egypt  to  its  destination.7 
There  were  palaces,  called  “ Memnonia,”  and  supposed  to  have 
been  built  by  him,  both  in  Egypt  and  at  Susa ; 8 and  there  was 
a tribe,  called  Memnones,  near  Meroe.9  Memnon  thus  unites 
the  Eastern  with  the  Western  Ethiopians  ; and  the  less  we 
regard  him  as  an  historical  personage,  the  more  must  we  view 
him  as  personifying  the  ethnic  identity  of  the  two  races. 

The  ordinary  genealogies  containing  the  name  of  Belus  point 
in  the  same  direction,  and  serve  more  definitely  to  connect  the 
Babylonians  with  the  Cushites  of  the  Nile.  Pherecydes,  who  is 
an  earlier  writer  than  Herodotus,  makes  Agenor,  the  son  of 
Neptune,  marry  Damno,  the  daughter  of  Belus,  and  have  issue 
Phoenix,  Issea,  and  Melia,  of  whom  Melia  marries  Danaus,  and 


9 Hesiod.  Theogon.  984:  “M  kfxvova 
Xa\KOKopv(TTT]v , Aid iottwu  PaaiArja.” 

1 Pind.  Nem.  iii.  62,  63. 

2 Ap.  Strab.  xv.  3,  § 2. 

3 Herod,  v.  54.  Compare  Strab.  1.  s.  c. ; 
Diod.  Sic.  ii.  22,  § 3. 

4 Diod.  Sic.  1.  s.  c. ; Pausan.  x.  31,  § 2; 
Cephalion  ap.  Euseb.  Chron.  Can.  i.  15, 
§5. 

5 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  22,  § 4. 


6 Euseb.  Chron.  Can.  ii.  p.  278 ; Syn- 
cellus,  Chronograph,  p.  151,  C.  Compare 
Strab.  xvii.  1,  § 42  ; and  Plin.  H.  A.  v.  9. 

7 Demetrius  ap.  Athen.  Deipnosoph. 
xv.  p.  680,  A. 

8 Herod,  v.  53 ; Strab.  xv.  3,  § 2, 
xvii.  1,  § 42;  Diod.  Sic.  1.  s.  c. ; Plin. 
11.  N.  1.  s.  c. 

9 Alex.  Polyhist.  Fr.  Ill;  Plin.  H.  N. 
vi.  30. 


Chap.  III. 


CUSHITE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CHALDEANS. 


49 


Isaea  iEgyptus.1  Apollodorus,  the  disciple  of  Eratosthenes, 
expresses  the  connexion  thus: — “Neptune  took  to  wife  Libya 
(or  Africa),  and  had  issue  Belus  and  Agenor.  Belus  married 
Anchinoe,  daughter  of  Nile,  “who  gave  birth  to  AEgyptus, 
Danaus,  Cepheus,  and  Phineus.  Agenor  married  Telephassa, 
and  had  issue  Europa,  Cadmus,  Phoenix,  and  Cilix.”2  Eupo- 
lemus,  who  professes  to  record  the  Babylonian  tradition  on  the 
subject,  tells  us  that  the  first  Belus,  whom  he  identifies  with 
Saturn,  had  two  sons,  Belus  and  Canaan.  Canaan  begat  the 
progenitor  of  the  Phoenicians  (Phoenix?),  who  had  two  sons, 
Chum  and  Mestra'im,  the  ancestors  respectively  of  the  Ethiopians 
and  the  Egyptians.3  ' Charax  of  Pergamus  spoke  of  AEgyptus 
as  the* son  of  Belus.4  John  of  Antioch  agrees  with  Apollo- 
dorus, but  makes  certain  additions.  According  to  him,  Neptune 
and  Libya  had  three  children,  Agenor,  Belus,  and  Enyalius  or 
Mars.  Belus  married  Sida,  and  had  issue  ^Egyptus  and 
Danaus ; while  Agenor  married  Tyro,  and  became  the  father  of 
five  children — Cadmus,  Phoenix,  Syrus,  Cilix,  and  Europa.5 

Many  further  proofs  might  be  adduced,  were  they  needed,  of 
the  Greek  belief  in  an  Asiatic  Ethiopia,  situated  somewhere 
between  Arabia  and  India,  on  the  shores  of  the  Erythraean  Sea. 
Herodotus  twice  speaks  of  the  Ethiopians  of  Asia,6  whom  he 
very  carefully  distinguishes  from  those  of  Africa,  and  who 
can  only  be  sought  in  this  position.  Ephorus,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  extended  the  Ethiopians  along  the  whole  of  the 
coast  washed  by  the  Southern  Ocean.  Eusebius  has  preserved 
a tradition  that,  in  the  reign  of  Amenophis  III.,  a body  of 
Ethiopians  migrated  from  the  country  about  the  Indus,  and 
settled  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile.7  Hesiod  and  Apollodorus,  by 
making  Memnon,  the  Ethiopian  king,  son  of  the  Dawn  (’Hco?),8 
imply  their  belief  in  an  Ethiopia  situated  to  the  east  rather 
than  to  the  south  of  Greece.  These  are  a few  out  of  the  many 
similar  notices  which  it  would  be  easy  to  produce  from  classical 


1 Pherecyd.  Fr.  40. 

2 Apollodor.  Bibliothec.  ii.  1 , § 4. 

3 See  the  Fragments  of  Polyhistor  in 
Miiller’s  Fr.  Hist.  Grose,  vol.  iii.  p.  212; 
Fr.  3. 


4 Charax  ap.  Steph.  Byz.  s.  v.  Atyvn-ro y. 

5 Johann.  Antiochen.  Fr.  6,  § i5. 

6 Herod,  iii.  94;  yii.  70. 

7 Euseb.  Chron.  Can.  ii.  p.  278. 

8 Hesiod,  1.  s.  c. ; Apollod.  iii.  12,  § 4. 

E 


VOL.  I. 


50 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


writers,  establishing,  if  not  the  fact  itself,  yet  at  any  rate  a full 
belief  in  the  fact  on  the  part  of  the  best  informed  among  the 
ancient  Greeks. 

The  traditions  of  the  Armenians  are  in  accordance  with  those 
of  the  Greeks.  The  Armenian  Geography  applies  the  name  of 
Cush  or  Ethiopia  to  the  four  great  regions,  Media,  Persia, 
Susiana  or  Elyma’is,  and  Aria,  or  to  the  wdiole  territory  between 
the  Indus  and  the  Tigris.9  Moses  of  Chorene,  the  great 
Armenian  historian,  identifies  Belus,  King  of  Babylon,  with 
Nimrod ; 1 while  at  the  same  time  he  adopts  for  him  a genea- 
logy only  slightly  different  from  that  in  our  present  copies  of 
Genesis,  making  Nimrod  the  grandson  of  Cush,  and  the  son  of 
Mizraim.2  He  thus  connects,  in  the  closest  way,  Babylonia, 
Egypt,  and  Ethiopia  Proper,  uniting  moreover,  by  his  identifi- 
cation of  Nimrod  with  Belus,  the  Babylonians  of  later  times, 
who  worshipped  Belus  as  their  hero-founder,  with  the  primitive 
population  introduced  into  the  country  by  Nimrod. 

The  names  of  Belus  and  Cush,  thus  brought  into  juxtaposi- 
tion, have  remained  attached  to  some  portion  or  other  of  the 
region  in  question  from  ancient  times  to  the  present  day.  The 
tract  immediately  east  of  the  Tigris  wras  known  to  the  Greeks 
as  Cissia  (K laala)  or  Cossaea  (K oacrala),  no  less  than  as  Elymais 
or  Elam.  The  country  east  of  Kerman  was  named  Kusan 
throughout  the  Sassanian  period.3  The  same  region  is  now 
Beloochistan,  the  country  of  the  Belooches  or  Belus,  while 
adjoining  it  on  the  east  is  Cutch,  or  Kooch,  a term  standing  to 
Cush  as  Belooch  stands  to  Belus.  Again,  Cissia  or  Cossaea  is 
now  Khuzistan,  or  the  land  of  Khuz  a name  not  very 

remote  from  Cush ; but  perhaps  this  is  only  a coincidence. 

To  the  traditions  and  traces  here  enumerated  must  be  added, 
as  of  primary  importance,  the  Biblical  tradition,  which  is  de- 
livered to  us  very  simply  and  plainly  in  that  precious  docu- 
ment, the  ‘ Toldoth  Beni  Noah,’  or  ‘ Book  of  the  Generations 
of  the  Sons  of  Noah,’  which  well  deserves  to  be  called  “ the  most 

3 Mos.  Choren.  Geograph,  pp.  363-5.  I 2 Ibid.  i.  4 ; p.  12. 

1 Mos.  Choren.  Mist.  Armen,  i.  6 ; 3 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv. 

PP-  19,  20.  | p.  233. 


Chap.  III.  ANCIENT  CHALDiEAN  LANGUAGE,  CUSHITE. 


5 


authentic  record  that  we  possess  for  the  affiliation  of  nations.” 4 
“ The  sons  of  Ham,”  we  are  told,  “ were  Cush,  and  Mizraim, 

and  Phut,  and  Canaan And  Cush  begat  Nimrod 

And  the  beginning  of  his  kingdom  was  Babel,  and  Erech,  and 
Accad,  and  Calneh,  in  the  land  of  Shinar.”  Here  a primitive 
Babylonian  kingdom  is  assigned  to  a people  distinctly  said  to 
have  been  Cushite  by  blood,5  and  to  have  stood  in  close  con- 
nexion with  Mizraim,  or  the  people  of  Egypt,  Phut,  or  those  of 
Central  Africa,  and  Canaan,  or  those  of  Palestine.  It  is  the 
simplest  and  the  best  interpretation  of  this  passage  to  under- 
stand it  as  asserting  that  the  four  races  — the  Egyptians, 
Ethiopians,  Libyans,  and  Canaanites  — were  ethnically  con- 
nected, being  all  descended  from  Ham ; and  further,  that  the 
primitive  people  of  Babylon  were  a subdivision  of  one  of  these 
races,  namely  of  the  Cushites  or  Ethiopians,  connected  in  some 
degree  with  the  Canaanites,  Egyptians,  and  Libyans,  but  still 
more  closely  with  the  people  which  dwelt  anciently  upon  the 
Upper  Nile. 

The  conclusions  thus  recommended  to  us  by  the  consentient 
primitive  traditions  of  so  many  races,  have  lately  received  most 
important  and  unexpected  confirmation  from  the  results  of  lin- 
guistic research.  After  the  most  remarkable  of  the  Mesopo- 
tamian mounds  had  yielded  their  treasures,  and  supplied  the 
historical  student  with  numerous  and  copious  documents  bear- 
ing upon  the  history  of  the  great  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
empires,  it  was  determined  to  explore  Chaldsea  Proper,  where 
mounds  of  less  pretension,  but  still  of  considerable  height, 

4 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 
p.  230. 

5 “ And  Cush  begat  Nimrod,”  Gen.  x. 

8.  Baron  Bunsen  says  in  one  work, 

“ Nimrod  is  called  a Cushite,  which 
means  a man  of  the  land  of  Cush  ” 

( Philos . of  Univ.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  191), 
and  proceeds  to  argue  that  he  was  only 
a Cushite  “ geographically,”  because  he, 
or  the  people  represented  by  him,  so- 
journed for  some  time  in  Ethiopia.  In 
another  (Egypt's  Place,  &c.,  vol.  iv. 
p.  412),  he  admits  that  this  view  con- 
tradicts. Gen.  x.  8,  and  allows  that  “ the 
compiler  of  our  present  Book  of  Genesis” 

E 2 


must  have  meant  to  derive  Nimrod  by 
descent  from  Ham ; but  this  “ com- 
piler ” was,  he  thinks,  deceived  by  the 
resemblance  of  to  Nimrod 

was  not  an  Ethiopian,  but  a Cossian  or 
Cosssean ; i.e.  (he  says)  a Turanian  who 
conquered  Babylon  from  the  mountain 
country  east  of  Mesopotamia.  Of  course, 
if  we  are  at  liberty  to  regard  the  “com- 
piler ” of  Genesis  as  “ mistaken”  when- 
ever his  statements  conflict  with  our 
theories,  while  at  the  same  time  we 
ignore  linguistic  facts,  we  may  speculate 
upon  ancient  history  and  ethnography 
much  at  our  pleasure. 


52 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


marked  the  sites  of  a number  of  ancient  cities.  The  excavations 
conducted  at  these  places,  especially  at  Niffer,  Senkereh, 
Warka,  and  Mugheir,  were  eminently  successful.  Among  their 
other  unexpected  results  was  the  discovery,  in  the  most  ancient 
remains,  of  a new  form  of  speech,  differing  greatly  from  the 
later  Babylonian  language,  and  presenting  analogies  with  the 
early  language  of  Susiana,  as  well  as  with  that  of  the  second 
column  of  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions.  In  grammatical 
structure  this  ancient  tongue  resembles  dialects  of  the  Turanian 
family,  but  its  vocabulary  has  been  pronounced  to  be  “ decidedly 
Cushite  or  Ethiopian 6 and  the  modern  languages  to  which  it 
approaches  the  nearest  are  thought  to  be  the  Mahra  of  Southern 
Arabia  and  the  Galla  of  Abyssinia.  Thus  comparative  philology 
appears  to  confirm  the  old  traditions.  An  Eastern  Ethiopia, 
instead  of  being  the  invention  of  bewildered  ignorance,7  is 
rather  a reality  which  henceforth  it  will  require  a good  deal  of 
scepticism  to  doubt;  and  the  primitive  race  which  bore  sway 
in  Chaldsea  Proper  is  with  much  probability  assigned  to  this 
ethnic  type. 

The  most  striking  physical  characteristics  of  the  African 
Ethiopians  were  their  swart  complexions,  and  their  crisp  or 
frizzled  hair.  According  to  Herodotus  the  Asiatic  Ethiopians 
were  equally  dark,  but  their  hair  was  straight  and  not  frizzled.8 
Probably  in  neither  case  was  the  complexion  what  we  understand 
by  black,  but  rather  a dark  red  brown  or  copper-colour,  which 
is  the  tint  of  the  modern  Gall  as  and  Abyssinians,  as  well  as  of 
the  Cha’b  and  Montefik  Arabs  and  the  Belooches.  The  hair 
was  no  doubt  abundant ; but  it  was  certainly  not  woolly  like 
that  of  the  negroes.  There  is  a marked  distinction  between  the 
negro  hair  and  that  of  the  Ethiopian  race,  which  is  sometimes 
straight,  sometimes  crisp,  but  never  woolly.  This  distinction  is 
carefully  marked  in  the  Egyptian  monuments,  as  is  also  the 


6 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  442. 

7 “ The  Bible  mentions  but  one  Kush, 

^Ethiopia ; an  Asiatic  Kush  exists  only 
in  the  imagination  of  the  interpreters, 
and  is  the  child*  of  their  despair.” 


Bunsen,  Philosophy  of  Univ.  Hist.  vol.  i. 
p.  191.  See  on  the  other  hand  Sir  H. 
Rawlinson’s  article  in  the  Journal  oj  the 
Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  art.  ii. ; and 
compare  especially  Ezek.  xxxviii.  5. 

8  Herod,  vii.  70. 


Chap.  III.  PHYSICAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  CUSHITE  RACES.  53 


distinction  between  the  Ethiopian  and  negro  complexions; 
whence  we  may  conclude  that  there  was  as  much  difference 
between  the  two  races  in  ancient  as  in  modern  times.  The 
African  races  descended  from  the  Ethiopians  are  on  the  whole 
a handsome  rather  than  an  ugly  people.  Their  figure  is  slender 
and  well  shaped;  their  features  are  regular,  and  have  some 
delicacy ; the  forehead  is  straight  and  fairly  high ; the  nose 
long,  straight,  and  fine,  but  scarcely  so  prominent  as  that  of 
Europeans ; the  chin  is  pointed  and  good.  The  principal  defect 
is  in  the  mouth,  which  has  lips  too  thick  and  full  for  beauty, 
though  they  are  not  turned  out  like  a negro’s.9  We  do  not 


Ethiopians  (after  Prichard). 


possess  any  representations  of  the  ancient  people  which  can  be 
distinctly  assigned  to  the  early  Cushite  period.  Abundant  hair 
has  been  noticed  in  an  early  tomb ; 1 and  this  in  the  later  Baby- 
lonians,  who  must  have  been  descended  in  great  part  from  the 
earlier,  was  very  conspicuous ; 2 but  otherwise  we  have  as  yet  no 
direct  evidence  with  respect  to  the  physical  characteristics  of 
the  primitive  race.3  That  they  were  brave  and  warlike,  in- 
genious, energetic,  and  persevering,  we  have  ample  evidence, 
which  will  appear  in  later  chapters  of  this  work ; but  we  can 
do  little  more  than  conjecture  their  physical  appearance,  which, 


9 See  Prichard’s  Physical  Hist,  of 
Mankind , vol.  ii.  p.  44. 

1 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  202. 

2 See  the  Cylinders,  passim ; and  com- 


pare Herod,  i.  195. 

3 Skeletons  have  been  found  in  abun- 
dance, but  they  have  undergone  no 
scientific  examination. 


54 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


however,  we  may  fairly  suppose  to  have  resembled  that  of  other 
Ethiopian  nations. 

When  the  early  inhabitants  of  Chaldasa  are  pronounced  to 
have  belonged  to  the  same  race  with  the  dwellers  upon  the 
Upper  Nile,  the  question  naturally  arises,  which  were  the  primi- 
tive people,  and  which  the  colonists?  Is  the  country  at  the 
head  of  the  Persian  Gulf  to  be  regarded  as  the  original  abode 
of  the  Cushite  race,  whence  it  spread  eastward  and  westward, 
on  the  one  hand  to  Susiana,  Persia  Proper,  Carmania,  Gedrosia, 
and  India  itself ; on  the  other  to  Arabia  and  the  east  coast  of 
Africa  ? Or  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  migration  proceeded  in 
one  direction  only — that  the  Cushites,  having  occupied  the 
country  immediately  to  the  south  of  Egypt,  sent  their  colonies 
along  the  south  coast  of  Arabia,  whence  they  crept  on  into  the 
Persian  Gulf,  occupying  Chaldsea  and  Susiana,  and  thence 
spreading  into  Mekran,  Kerman,  and  the  regions  bordering  upon 
the  Indus?  Plausible  reasons  may  be  adduced  in  support  of 
either  hypothesis.  The  situation  of  Babylonia,  and  its  proximity 
to  that  mountain  region  where  man  must  have  first  “ increased 
and  multiplied  ” after  the  Flood,  are  in  favour  of  its  being  the 
original  centre  from  which  the  other  Cushite  races  were  derived. 
The  Biblical  genealogy  of  the  sons  of  Ham  points,  however,  the 
other  way;  for  it  derives  Nimrod  from  Cush,  not  Cush  from 
Nimrod.  Indeed  this  document  seems  to  follow  the  Hamites 
from  Africa — emphatically  " the  land  of  Ham  ” 4 — in  one  line 
along  Southern  Arabia  to  Shinar  or  Babylonia,  in  another  from 
Egypt  through  Canaan  into  Syria.  The  antiquity  of  civilization 
in  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  which  preceded  by  many  centuries 
that  even  of  primitive  Chaldsea,  is  another  argument  in  favour 
of  the  migration  having  been  from  west  to  east ; and  the  monu- 
ments and  traditions  of  the  Chaldseans  themselves  have  been 
thought  to  present  some  curious  indications  of  an  East  African 
origin.5  On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  seems  most  probable  that 
the  race  designated  in  Scripture  by  the  hero-founder  Nimrod, 


4 Ps.  lxxviii.  51 ; cv.  23,  27  ; cvi.  22. 

Egypt  is  called  Chemi  in  the  native  in- 
scriptions. 


5 See  the  Essay  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson, 
in  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  442. 
note  (1st  edition). 


Chap.  III. 


THE  AKKAD  OR  BURBUR,  TURANIANS. 


55 


and  among  the  Greeks  by  the  eponym  of  Belus,  passed  from 
East  Africa,  by  way  of  Arabia,  to  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates, 
shortly  before  the  opening  of  the  historical  period. 

Upon  the  ethnic  basis  here  indicated,  there  was  grafted,  it 
would  seem,  at  a very  early  period,  a second,  probably  Turanian, 
element,  which  very  importantly  affected  the  character  and 
composition  of  the  people.  The  Burbur  or  Akkad,  who  are 
found  to  have  been  a principal  tribe  under  the  early  kings,  are 
connected  by  name,  religion,  and  in  some  degree  by  language, 
with  an  important  people  of  Armenia,  called  Burbur  and  TJrarda, 
the  Alarodians  (apparently)  of  Herodotus.6  It  has  been  con- 
jectured that  this  race  at  a very  remote  date  descended  upon  the 
plain  country,  conquering  the  original  Cushite  inhabitants,  and 
by  degrees  blending  with  them,  though  the  fusion  remained 
incomplete  to  the  time  of  Abraham.  The  language  of  the  early 
inscriptions,  though  Cushite  in  its  vocabulary,  is  Turanian  in 
many  points  of  its  grammatical  structure,  as  in  its  use  of  post- 
positions, particles,  and  pronominal  suffixes ; and  it  would  seem, 
therefore,  scarcely  to  admit  of  a doubt  that  the  Cushites  of 
Lower  Babylon  must  in  some  way  or  other  have  become  mixed 
with  a Turanian  people.  The  mode  and  time  of  the  commixture 
are  matters  altogether  beyond  our  knowledge.  We  can  only 
note  the  fact  as  indicated  by  the  phenomena,  and  form,  or 
abstain  from  forming,  as  we  please,  hypotheses  with  respect  to 
its  accompanying  circumstances. 

Besides  these  two  main  constituents  of  the  Chaldsean  race, 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  both  a Semitic  and  an  Arian  ele- 
ment existed  in  the  early  population  of  the  country.  The 
subjects  of  the  early  kings  are  continually  designated  in  the 
inscriptions  by  the  title  of  kiiprat-arbat,  “ the  four  nations,”  or 
arba  limn,  “ the  four  tongues.”  In  Abraham’s  time,  again,  the 
league  of  four  kings  seems  correspondent  to  a fourfold  ethnic 
division,  Cushite,  Turanian,  Semitic,  and  Arian,  the  chief 
authority  and  ethnic  preponderance  being  with  the  Cushites.7 


6 See  an  Essay  by  the  same  writer  in  I 7 Chedor-laomer,  by  his  leadership  of 
the  fourth  volume  of  the  same  work,  | the  Elamites  or  Susianians,  should  be  a 

pp.  250-254  (1st  edition).  j Cushite;  Tidal,  king  of  nations,  i.e.  of 


56 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


The  language  also  of  the  early  inscriptions  is  thought  to  contain 
traces  of  Semitic,  and  Arian  influence  ; so  that  it  is  at  least  pro- 
bable that  the  “ four  tongues  ” intended  were  not  mere  local 
dialects,  but  distinct  languages,  the  representatives  respectively 
of  the  four  great  families  of  human  speech. 

It  would  result  from  this  review  of  the  linguistic  facts  and 
other  ethnic  indications,  that  the  Chaldseans  were  not  a pure, 
but  a very  mixed  people.  Like*  the  Eomans  in  ancient,  and  the 
English  in  modern  Europe,  they  were  a “ colluvio  gentium  om- 
nium;” a union  of  various  races  between  which  there  was  marked 
and  violent  contrast.  It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  such 
races  are  among  those  which  play  the  most  distinguished  part 
in  the  world’s  history,  and  most  vitally  affect  its  progress. 

With  respect  to  the  name  of  Chaldsean,  under  which  it  has 
been  customary  to  designate  this  mixed  people,  it  is  curious  to 
find  that  in  the  native  documents  of  the  early  period  it  does  not 
occur  at  all.  Indeed  it  first  appears  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions 
of  the  ninth  century  before  our  era,  being  then  used  as  the  name 
of  the  dominant  race  in  the  country  about  Babylon.  Still,  as 
Berosus,  who  cannot  easily  have  been  ignorant  of  the  ancient 
appellation  of  his  race,  applies  the  term  Chaldsean  to  the  primi- 
tive people,8  and,  as  Scripture  assigns  Ur  to  the  Chaldees  as 
early  as  the  time  of  Abraham,  we  are  entitled  to  assume  that 
this  term,  whenever  it  came  historically  into  use,  is  in  fact  no 
unfit  designation  for  the  early  inhabitants  of  the  country. 
Perhaps  the  most  probable  account  of  the  origin  of  the  word  is, 
that  it  designates  properly  the  inhabitants  of  the  ancient  capital, 
Ur  or  Hur — Klialdi  being  in  the  Burbur  dialect  the  exact  equi- 
valent of  Hur , which  was  the  proper  name  of  the  Moon  God,  and 
Chaldseans  being  thus  either  “ Moon-worshippers,”  or  simply 
‘‘inhabitants  of  the  town  dedicated  to,  and  called  after,  the 
Moon.”  Like  the  term  “Babylonian,”  it  would  at  first  have 
designated  simply  the  dwellers  in  the  capital,  and  would  subse- 
quently have  been  extended  to  the  people  generally. 


the  wandering  tribes,  should  be  a Scyth, 
or  Turanian ; Arioch  recalls  the  term 
“ Arian,”  -while  Amraphel  is  a name 
cast  in  a Semitic  mould.  See  a note  by 


Sir  H.  Eawlinson  in  the  first  volume  of 
the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  i.  Essay  vi. 
§21,  note  7 (second  edition). 

8 Berosus,  Fr.  i.  §§  5,  6,  11,  &c. 


Chap.  III. 


CHALDiEAN  THEORY  OF  GESENIUS. 


57 


A different  theory  has  of  late  years  been  usually  maintained 
with  respect  to  the  Chaldseans.  It  has  been  supposed  that 
they  were  a race  entirely  distinct  from  the  early  Babylonians — 
Armenians,  Arabs,  Kurds,  or  Sclaves — who  came  down  from  the 
north  long  after  the  historical  period,  and  settled  as  the  domi- 
nant race  in  the  lower  Mesopotamian  valley . 9 Philological 
arguments  of  the  weakest  and  most  unsatisfactory  character 
were  confidently  adduced  in  support  of  these  views ; 1 but  they 
obtained  acceptance  chiefly  on  account  of  certain  passages  of 
Scripture,  which  were  thought  to  imply  that  the  Chaldseans 
first  colonised  Babylonia  in  the  seventh  or  eighth  century  before 
Christ.  The  most  important  of  these  passages  is  in  Isaiah. 
That  prophet,  in  his  denunciation  of  woe  upon  Tyre,  says, 
according  to  our  translation, — “ Behold  the  land  of  the  Chal- 
daeans ; this  people  was  not , till  the  Assyrian  founded  it  for  them 
that  dwell  in  the  wilderness ; they  set  up  the  towers  thereof? 
they  raised  up  the  palaces  thereof ; and  he  brought  it  to  ruin  ;”2 
or,  according  to  Bishop  Lowth,  “ Behold  the  land  of  the  Chal- 
daeans.  This  people  was  of  no  account.  (The  Assyrians  founded 
it  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  desert,  they  raised  the  watch-towers, 
they  set  up  the  palaces  thereof.)  This  people  hath  reduced  her 
and  shall  reduce  her  to  ruin.”  It  was  argued  that  we  had  here 
a plain  declaration  that,  till  a little  before  Isaiah’s  time,  the 
Chaldseans  had  never  existed  as  a nation.  Then,  it  was  said, 
they  obtained  for  the  first  time  fixed  habitations  from  one  of 
the  Assyrian  kings,  who  settled  them  in  a city,  probably 
Babylon.  Shortly  afterwards,  following  the  analogy  of  so  many 
Eastern  races,  they  suddenly  sprang  up  to  power.  Here  another 


9 Gesenius,  Comment,  in  Esaiam  xxiii. 
13,  and  Geschichte  der  Hebr.  Spy' ache, 
pp.  63,  64;  Heeren,  Asiatic  Nations, 
vol.  ii.  p.  147 ; Niebuhr,  Lectures  on 
Ancient  History,  vol.  i.  p.  20,  note; 
Winer,  Bealworterbuch,  vol.  i.  p.  218; 
Kitto,  Biblical  Cyclopaedia , vol.  i.  p.  408, 
&c.  Mr.  Vaux  ( Diet . of  Antiquities , 
vol.  i.  p.  601)  with  good  reason  questions 
the  common  opinion. 

1 As  that  Nebuchadnezzar  might  be 
the  Sclavonic  sentence  Nebye  had  zenur 


tzar , or  “De  ccelo  missus  dominus,” — 
that  Merodach  might  be  the  Persian  mar- 
dak,  “ homunculus,”  &c.  (See  Prichard’s 
JPhys.  Hist,  of  Mankind,  vol.  iv.  pp.  563- 
564.)  A more  refined  argument  was 
that  of  Gesenius,  “ that  the  construction 
of  the  names  was  according,  not  to 
Semitic,  but  to  Medo-Persian  prin- 
ciples ; ” but,  being  based  upon  pure 
conjectures  as  to  the  possible  etymology 
of  the  words,  it  was  really  worthless. 

2 Isaiah  xxiii.  13. 


58 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Char  III. 


passage  of  Scripture  was  thought  to  have  an  important  bearing 
on  their  history.  “ Lo ! I raise  ujo  the  Chaldaeans,”  says 
Habakkuk,  “ that  bitter  and  hasty  nation,  which  shall  march 
through  the  breadth  of  the  land  to  possess  the  dwelling  places 
that  are  not  theirs.  They  are  terrible  and  dreadful ; their 
judgment  and  their  dignity  shall  proceed  of  themselves ; their 
horses  also  are  swifter  than  the  leopards,  and  are  more  fierce 
than  the  evening  wolves  : and  their  horsemen  shall  spread  them- 
selves, and  their  horsemen  shall  come  from  far ; they  shall  fly 
as  an  eagle  that  hasteth  to  eat ; they  shall  come  all  for  violence ; 
their  faces  shall  nip  as  the  east  wind,  and  they  shall  gather  the 
captivity  as  the  sand.  And  they  shall  scoff  at  the  kings,  and 
the  princes  shall  be  a scorn  unto  them ; they  shall  deride  every 
stronghold ; they  shall  heap  dust  and  take  it.” 3 The  Chaldaeans, 
recent  occupants  of  Lower  Mesopotamia,  and  there  only  a domi- 
nant race,  like  the  Normans  in  England  or  the  Lombards  in 
North  Italy,  were,  on  a sudden,  “ raised  up” — elevated  from 
their  low  estate  of  Assyrian  colonists  to  the  conquering  people 
which  they  became  under  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Such  was  the  theory,  originally  advanced  by  Gesenius,  which, 
variously  modified  by  other  writers,  held  its  ground  on  the 
whole  as  the  established  view,  until  the  recent  cuneiform  dis- 
coveries. It  was,  from  the  first,  a theory  full  of  difficulty.  The 
mention  of  the  Chaldaeans  in  Job,4  and  even  in  Genesis,5  as  a 
well-known  people,  was  in  contradiction  to  the  supposed  recent 
origin  of  the  race.  The  explanation  of  the  obscure  passage  in 
the  23rd  chapter  of  Isaiah,  on  which  the  theory  was  mainly 
based,  was  at  variance  with  other  clearer  passages  of  the  same 
prophet.  Babylon  is  called  by  Isaiah  the  “daughter  of  the 
Chaldaeans,” 6 and  is  spoken  of  as  an  ancient  city,  long  “ the 
glory  of  kingdoms,” 7 the  oppressor  of  nations,  the  power  that 
“ smote  the  people  in  wrath  with  a continual  stroke.” 8 She  is 
“the  lady  of  kingdoms,”9  and  “the  beauty  of  the  Chaldees’ 
excellency.” 1 The  Chaldaeans  are  thus  in  Isaiah,  as  elsewhere 


3 Habakkuk  i.  6-10.  4 Job  i.  17. 

5 Gen.  xi.  28  and  31. 

6 Isaiah  xlvii.  1 and  5. 


7 Isaiah  xiii.  19. 
9 Ibid,  xlvii.  5. 


8 Ibid.  xiv.  6. 

1 Ibid.  xiii.  19. 


Chap.  III.  CHALD2EAN  THEORY  OF  GESENIUS,  EXAMINED.  59 


generally  in  Scripture,  the  people  of  Babylonia,  the  term  “ Ba- 
bylonians ” not  being  used  by  him  ; Babylon  is  their  chief  city, 
not  one  which  they  have  conquered  and  occupied,  but  their 
“ daughter  ” — “ the  beauty  of  their  excellency  and  so  all  the 
antiquity  and  glory  which  is  assigned  to  Babylon  belong  neces- 
sarily in  Isaiah’s  mind  to  the  Chaldseans.  The  verse,  therefore, 
in  the  23rd  chapter,  on  which  so  much  has  been  built,  can  at 
most  refer  to  some  temporary  depression  of  the  Chaldaeans, 
which  made  it  a greater  disgrace  to  Tyre  that  she  should  be 
conquered  by  them.  Again,  the  theory  of  Gesenius  took  no 
account  of  the  native  historian,  who  is  (next  to  Scripture)  the 
best  literary  authority  for  the  facts  of  Babylonian  history. 
Berosus  not  only  said  nothing  of  any  influx  of  an  alien  race 
into  Babylonia  shortly  before  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but 
pointedly  identified  the  Chaldaeans  of  that  period  with  the 
primitive  people  of  the  country.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  he 
would  do  this  from  national  vanity,  to  avoid  the  confession  of 
a conquest,  for  he  admits  no  fewer  than  three  conquests  of 
Babylon,  a Median,  an  Arabian,  and  an  Assyrian.2  Thus,  even 
apart  from  the  monuments,  the  theory  in  question  would  be  un- 
tenable. It  really  originated  in  linguistic  speculations,3  which 
turn  out  to  have  been  altogether  mistaken. 

The  joint  authority  of  Scripture  and  of  Berosus  will  probably 
be  accepted  as  sufficient  to  justify  the  adoption  of  a term  which, 
if  not  strictly  correct,  is  yet  familiar  to  us,  and  which  will  con- 
veniently serve  to  distinguish  the  primitive  monarchy,  whose 
chief  seats  were  in  Chaldsea  Proper  (or  the  tract  immediately 
bordering  upon  the  Persian  Gulf),  from  the  later  Babylonian 
Empire,  which  had  its  head-quarters  further  to  the  north.  The 
people  of  this  first  kingdom  will  therefore  be  called  Chaldseans, 
although  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  applied  the  name  to 
themselves,  or  that  it  was  even  known  to  them  in  primitive 
times. 

The  general  character  of  this  remarkable  people  will  best 

2 Berosus,  Fr.  11  and  12.  Physical  History  of  Mankind , vol.  iv. 

3 See  Niebuhr,  Lectures  on  Ancient  pp.  563,  564. 

History , vol.  i.  p.  20,  note ; and  Prichard, 


6o 


THE  FIEST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


appear  from  the  account,  presently  to  be  given,  of  their  man- 
ners, their  mode  of  life,  their  arts,  their  science,  their  religion, 
and  their  history.  It  is  not  convenient  to  forestal  in  this  place 
the  results  of  almost  all  our  coming  inquiries.  Suffice  it  to 
observe  that,  though  possessed  of  not  many  natural  advantages, 
the  Chaldsean  people  exhibited  a fertility  of  invention,  a genius, 
and  an  energy,,  which  place  them  high  in  the  scale  of  nations, 
and  more  especially  in  the  list  of  those  descended  from  a 
Hamitic  stock.  For  the  last  3000  years  the  world  has  been 
mainly  indebted  for  its  advancement  to  the  Semitic  and  Indo- 
European  races  ; but  it  was  otherwise  in  the  first  ages.  Egypt 
and  Babylon — Mizraim  and  Nimrod — both  descendants  of  Iiam 
— led  the  wray,  and  acted  as  the  pioneers  of  mankind  in  the 
various  untrodden  fields  of  art,  literature,  and  science.  Alpha- 
betic writing,  astronomy,  history,  chronology,  architecture, 
plastic  art,  sculpture,  navigation,  agriculture,  textile  industry, 
seem,  all  of  them,  to  have  had  their  origin  in  one  or  other  of 
these  two  countries.  The  beginnings  may  have  been  often 
humble  enough.  We  may  laugh  at  the  rude  picture-writing, 
the  uncouth  brick  pyramid,  the  coarse  fabric,  the  homely  and 
ill-shapen  instruments,  as  they  present  themselves  to  our  notice 
in  the  remains  of  these  ancient  nations ; but  they  are  really 
worthier  of  our  admiration  than  of  our  ridicule.  The  first 
inventors  of  any  art  are  among  the  greatest  benefactors  of  their 
race ; and  the  bold  step  which  they  take  from  the  unknown  to 
the  known,  from  blank  ignorance  to  discovery,  is  equal  to  many 
steps  of  subsequent  progress.  “ The  commencement,”  says 
Aristotle,  “is  more  than  half  of  the  w7hole.”4  This  is  a sound 
judgment ; and  it  will  be  well  that  we  should  bear  it  in  mind 
during  the  review,  on  wThich  we  are  about  to  enter,  of  the  lan- 
guage, writing,  useful  and  ornamental  art,  science,  and  lite- 
rature of  the  Chaldseans.  “ The  child  is  father  of  the  man,” 
both  in  the  individual  and  the  species ; and  the  human  race  at 
the  present  day  lies  under  infinite  obligations  to  the  genius  and 
industry  of  early  ages. 


4 Arist.  Eth.  Nic. 


ad  fin. 


Chap.  IV. 


LANGUAGE  AND  WRITING. 


61 


CHAPTER  IV. 

LANGUAGE  AND  WRITING. 

“ Tpa^ixara  kcu  y\uxraa  XaXdaicoj/.” — Dan.  i.  4.  (Sept,  vers.) 

It  was  noted  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  Chaldsea,  in  the 
earliest  times  to  which  we  can  go  back,  seems  to  have  been 
inhabited  by  four  principal  tribes.  The  early  kings  are  con- 
tinually represented  on  the  monuments  as  sovereigns  over  the 
Kijprat-arbat,  or  “Four  Races.”  These  “Four  Races”  are 
called  sometimes  the  Arba  Lisun,  or  “ Four  Tongues,”  whence 
we  may  conclude  that  they  were  distinguished  from  one  another, 
among  other  differences,  by  a variety  in  their  forms  of  speech. 
The  extent  and  nature  of  the  variety  could  not,  of  course,  be 
determined  merely  from  this  expression;  but  the  opinion  of 
those  who  have  most  closely  studied  the  subject  appears  to  be 
that  the  differences  were  great  and  marked — the  languages 
in  fact  belonging  to  the  four  great  varieties  of  human  speech — 
the  Hamitic,  Semitic,  Arian,  and  Turanian. 

The  language  which  the  early  inscriptions  have  revealed  to 
us  is  not,  of  course,  composed  equally  of  these  four  elements. 
It  does,  however,  contain  strong  marks  of  admixture.  It  is 
predominantly  Cushite  in  its  vocabulary,  Turanian  in  its  struc- 
ture. Its  closest  analogies  are  with  such  dialects  as  the  Mahra 
of  Arabia,  the  Galla  and  Wolaitsa  of  Abyssinia,  and  the  ancient 
language  of  Egypt,  but  in  certain  cases  it  more  resembles  the 
Turkish,  Tatar,  and  Magyar  (Turanian)  dialects  ; while  in  some 
it  presents  Semitic  and  in  others  Arian  affinities.  This  will 
appear  sufficiently  from  the  following  list : — 

Dingir  or  Dimir , “ God.”  Compare  Turkish  Tengri. 

Atta , “ father.”  Compare  Turkish  atta.  Etea  is  “ father  ” in  the  Wolaitsa 
(Abyssinian)  dialect. 

Sis , “brother.”  Compare  Wolaitsa  and  Woratta  isha. 


62 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IY. 


Tur , “a  youth,”  “a  son.”  Compare  the  tur-Jchan  of  the  Parthians  (Tu- 
ranians), who  was  the  Crown  Prince. 

E,  “ a house.”  Compare  ancient  Egyptian  e,  and  Turkish  ev. 

Ka , “a  gate.”  Compare  Turkish  Jeapi. 

Kharran , “ a road.”  Compare  Galla  kara. 

Huru , “a  town.”  Compare  Heb.  "py. 

.Ar,  “a  river.”  Compare  Heb.  Arab.  nahr. 

Gabri,  “ a mountain.”  Compare  Arabic  jabal. 

Ki , “the  earth.” 

Kingi,  “ a country.” 

$em,  “ the  sun.” 

Kha,  “ a fish”  (?). 

Kurra,  “ a horse.”  Compare  Arabic  gurra. 

Guski , “gold.”  Compare  Galla  werke.  Guski  means  also  “red”  and  “the 
evening.” 

Babar , “silver,”  “white,”  “the  morning.”  Compare  Agau  ber , Tigre 
burrur. 

Zabar , “ copper.”  Compare  Arabic  sifr. 

Hurud , “ iron.”  Compare  Arabic  hadid. 

Zakad , “ the  head.”  Compare  Gonga  fo&o. 

Eat , “ the  hand.”  Compare  Gonga  Mso. 

>S&,  “ the  eye.” 

P^‘,  “ the  ear.”  Compare  Magyar  fill. 

Gula , “ great.”  Compare  Galla  guda. 

Tur  a,  “ little.”  Compare  Gonga  tu  and  Galla  tina. 

Kelga , “ powerful.” 

Ginn,  “ first.” 

JPs,  “ many.”  Compare  Agau  mineh  or  meneh. 

Gar,  “ to  do.” 

Egir,  “ after.”  Compare  Hhamara  (Abyssinian)  igria. 

The  grammar  of  this  language  is  still  but  very  little  known. 
The  conjugations  of  verbs  are  said  to  be  very  intricate  and 
difficult,  a great  variety  of  verbal  forms  being  obtained  from 
the  same  root,  as  in  Hebrew,  by  means  of  preformatives. 
Number  and  person  in  the  verbs  are  marked  by  suffixes — the 
third  person  singular  (masculine)  by  hi  (compare  Gonga  hi, 
“ he  ”),  or  ani  (compare  Galla  enni,  “ he  ”),  the  third  person 
plural  by  bi-nini. 

The  accusative  case  in  nouns  is  marked  by  a postposition, 
hu,  as  in  Hindustani.  The  plural  of  pronouns  and  substantives 
is  formed  sometimes  by  reduplication.  Thus  ni  is  “ him,” 
while  nini  is  “ them ; ” and  Chanaan,  Yavnan,  Libnan , seem 
to  be  plural  forms  from  Chna,  Yavan,  and  Liban. 


Chap.  IV. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  CHALDEANS. 


63 


A curious  anomaly  occurs  in  the  declension  of  pronouns.1 
When  accompanied  by  the  preposition  hita , “ with,”  there  is  a 
tmesis  of  the  preposition,  and  the  pronouns  are  placed  between 
its  first  and  second  syllable;  e.g.  ni,  “him” — hi-ni-ta,  “with 
him.”  This  takes  place  in  every  number  and  person,  as  the 
following  scheme  will  show  : — 


1st  person. 

2nd  person. 

3rd  person. 

Sing.  M-mu-ta 

ki-zu-ta 

ki-ni-ta 

(with  me) 

(with  thee) 

( with  him) 

Plur.  ki-mi-ta 

ki-zu-nini-ta 

ki-nini-ta 

(with  us) 

(with  you) 

(with  them). 

N.B. — The  formation  of  the  second  person  plural  deserves 
attention.  The  word  zu-nini  is,  clearly,  composed  of  the  two 
elements,  zu,  “ thee,”  and  nini , “ them  ” — so  that  instead  of 
having  a word  for  “ you,”  the  Chaldaeans  employed  for  it  the 
periphrasis  “ thee-them  ” ! There  is,  I believe,  no  known 
language  which  presents  a parallel  anomaly. 

Such  are  the  chief  known  features  of  this  interesting  but  diffi- 
cult form  of  speech.  A specimen  may  now  be  given  of  the  mode 
in  which  it  was  written.  Among  the  earliest  of  the  monuments 
hitherto  discovered  are  a set  of  bricks  bearing  the  following 
cuneiform  inscription  : — 


1*K  Mill 

1M 

wwii'iS 

f,rMf  « mcm. 

IB  &!»  irjtil 

site,® 

dm 

1 There  is,  I believe,  a near  parallel  I separate  prepositions,  both  having  the 
to  this  peculiarity  in  the  Ostiak.  [It  same  meaning,  and  the  phrase  is  merely 
has  been  compared  with  our  own  use  of  pleonastic.  There  is  no  reason  to  be- 
such  an  expression  as  “to  us- ward ; ” i lieve  that  ki  and  ta  have  separately 
hut  here  “to”  and  “ward”  are  really  1 the  meaning  of  “ with.”] 


64 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IY. 


This  inscription  is  explained  to  mean : — “ Beltis,  his  lady, 
has  caused  Urukh  (?),  the  pious  chief,  King  of  Hur,  and 
King  of  the  land  (?)  of  the  Akkad,  to  build  a temple  to 
her.”  In  the  same  locality  where  it  occurs,2  bricks  are  also 
found  bearing  evidently  the  same  inscription,  but  written  in  a 

different  manner.  Instead 
of  the  wedge  and  arrow- 
head being  the  elements 
of  the  writing,  the  whole 
is  formed  by  straight  lines 
of  almost  uniform  thick- 
ness, and  the  impression 
seems  to  have  been  made 
by  a single  stamp. 

This  mode  of  writing, 
which  has  been  called  with- 
out much  reason  “ the  hieratic,” 3 and  of  which  we  have  but  a 
small  number  of  instances,  has  confirmed  a conjecture,  originally 
suggested  by  the  early  cuneiform  writing  itself,  that  the 
characters  were  at  first  the  pictures  of  objects.  In  some  cases 
the  pictorial  representation  is  very  plain  and  palpable.  For 
instance  the  “ determinative  ” of  a god — the  sign,  that  is,  which 
marks  that  the  name  of  a god  is  about  to  follow,  in  this  early 
rectilinear  writing  is  , an  eight-rayed  star.  The  archaic 

cuneiform  keeps  closely  to  this  type,  merely  changing  the  lines 
into  wedges,  thus  , while  the  later  cuneiform  first  unites 

the  oblique  wedges  in  one  and  then  omits  them  as  un- 

necessary, retaining  only  the  perpendicular  and  the  horizontal 
ones  >4-  Again,  the  character  representing  the  word  “hand  ” 


is,  in  the  rectilinear  writing 
— | , in  the  later  cuneiform 


in  the  archaic  cuneiform 


The  five  lines  (after- 


2 The  bricks  in  question  were  found 
at  Warka,  the  ancient  Uuruk  or  Erech. 

(See  Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p. 


169.) 

3 See  Oppert’s  Expedition  scientijique 
en  Mesopotamie,  tom.  ii.  p.  62. 


Chap.  IT, 


WRITING  OF  THE  CHALD  JEANS. 


65 


wards  reduced  to  four)  clearly  represent  the  thumb  and  the  four 
fingers.  So  the  character  ordinarily  representing  “ a house  ” 

the  original  | |,  the 


is  evidently  formed  from 
ground-plan  of  a house ; and  that  denoting  “ the  sun 


comes  from 


O. 


through 


and 


I 


the  original  <^)> 


being  the  best  representation  that  straight  lines  could  give  of 
the  sun.  In  the  case  of  ha,  “ a gate,”  we  have  not  the  original 

design ; but  we  may  see  post,  bars,  and  hinges  in 
the  ordinary  character.4 

Another  curious  example  of  the  pictorial  origin  of  the  letters 

is  furnished  by  the  character  mi  , which  is  the  French 

une,  the  feminine  of  “ one.”  This  character  may  be  traced  up 
through  several  known  forms  to  an  original  picture,  which  is 
thus  given  on  a Koyunjik  tablet  =|  . It  has  been  con- 

jectured that  the  object  here  represented  is  “ a sarcophagus.”  5 
But  the  true  account  seems  to  be  that  it  is  a double-toothed  comb, 
a toilet  article  peculiar  to  women,  and  therefore  one  which 
might  well  be  taken  to  express  “ a woman,”  or  more  generally 
the  feminine  gender.  It  is  worth  notice  that  the  emblem  is  the 
very  one  still  in  use  among  the  Lurs,  in  the  mountains  over- 
hanging Babylonia.6  And  it  is  further  remarkable  that  the 
phonetic  power  of  the  character  here,  spoken  of  is  it  (or  yat) — 
the  ordinary  Semitic  feminine  ending. 

The  original  writing,  it  would  therefore  seem,  was  a picture- 
writing,  as  rude  as  that  of  the  Mexicans.  Objects  were  them- 
selves represented,  but  coarsely  and  grotesquely — and,  which  is 
especially  remarkable,  without  any  curved  lines.  This  would 


4 It  has  been  conjectured  that  the 
ideograph  for  “ king,”  which  stands  as 
the  first  character  in  the  first  and 
second  compartments  of  the  second 
column  in  the  inscription  given  above 
(p.  63),  is  derived  from  a rude  drawing 
of  a bee,  the  Egyptian  emblem  of 
sovereignty.  (See  Menant,  Briques  de 
VOL.  I. 


Babylone,  p.  20.) 

5 Oppert,  tom.  ii.  p.  66. 

6 See  the  Journal  of  the  Geographical 
Society , vol.  ix.  p.  58,  where,  in  speaking 
of  the  devices  on  the  tombs  of  the  Lurs, 
Sir  H.  Rawlinson  notes  “ the  double- 
toothed comb  ” as  the  distinctive  mark 
of  the  female  sex. 

F 


66 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IY. 


seem  to  indicate  that  the  system  grew  up  where  a hard  material, 
probably  stone,  was  alone  used.  The  cuneiform  writing  arose 
when  clay  took  the  place  of  stone  as  a material.  A small  tool, 
with  a square  or  triangular  point,7  impressed,  by  a series  of 
distinct  touches,  the  outline  of  the  old  pictured  objects  on  the 
soft  clay  of  tablets  and  bricks.  In  course  of  time  simplifications 
took  place.  The  less  important  wedges  were  omitted.  One 
stroke  took  the  place  of  two,  or  sometimes  of  three.  In  this 
way  the  old  form  of  objects  became,  in  all  but  a few  cases,  very 
indistinct ; while  generally  it  was  lost  altogether. 

Originally  each  character  had,  it  would  seem,  the  phonetic 
power  of  the  name  borne  by  the  object  which  it  represented. 
But,  as  this  name  was  different  in  the  languages  of  the  different 
tribes  inhabiting  the  country,  the  same  character  came  often  to 
have  several  distinct  phonetic  values.  For  instance,  the  character 


representing  “a  house,”  had  the  phonetic  values  of 


e,  bit,  and  mod,  because  those  were  the  words  expressive  of  “ a 
house,”  among  the  Hamitic,  Semitic,  and  Arian  populations 
respectively,  Again,  characters  did  not  always  retain  their 
original  phonetic  powers,  but  abbreviated  them.  Thus  the 
character  which  originally  stood  for  Assur,  “ Assyria,”  came  to 
have  the  sound  of  as,  that  denoting  bit,  “ a lord,”  had  in  addition 
the  sound  of  bi,  and  so  on.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  feel  any  certainty  in  regard  to  the  phonetic 
representation  of  a single  line  of  these  old  inscriptions.  The 
meaning  of  each  word  may  be  well  known ; but  the  articulate 
sounds  which  were  in  the  old  times  attached  to  them  may  be 
matter  almost  of  conjecture. 

The  Chaldsean  characters  are  of  three  kinds — letters  proper, 
monograms,  and  determinatives.  With  regard  to  the  letters 
proper,  there  is  nothing  particular  to  remark,  except  that  they 
have  almost  always  a syllabic  force.  The  monograms  represent 
in  a brief  way,  by  a wedge  or  a group  of  wedges,  an  entire  word, 
often  of  two  or  three  syllables,  as  Nebo,  Babil,  Merodach,  &c. 


7 Tools  with  a triangular  point,  made  I cuneiform  writing,  have  been  found  at 
in  ivory,  apparently  for  employment  in  | Babylon.  (See  Oppert,  tom.  ii.  p.  63.) 


Chap.  IY. 


WRITING  ON  BRICKS  AND  TABLETS. 


67 


The  determinatives  mark  that  the  word  which  they  accompany 
is  a word  of  a certain  class,  as  a god,  a man,  a country,  a town, 
&c.  These  last,  it  is  probable,  were  not  sounded  at  all  when 
the  word  was  read.  They  served,  in  some  degree,  the  purpose 
of  our  capital  letters  in  the  middle  of  sentences,  but  gave  more 
exact  notice  of  the  nature  of  the  coming  word.  Curiously 
enough,  they  are  retained  sometimes,  where  the  word  which 
they  accompany  has  merely  its  phonetic  power,  as  (generally) 
when  the  names  of  gods  form  a part  of  the  names  of  monarchs. 

It  has  been  noticed  already  that  the  chief  material  on 
which  the  ancient  Chaldseans  wrote  was  moist  clay,  in  the 
two  forms  of  tablets  and  bricks.  On  bricks  are  found  only 
royal  inscriptions,  having  reference  to  the  buildiug  in  which 
the  bricks  were  used,  commonly  designating  its  purpose,  and 
giving  the  name  and  titles  of  the  monarch  who  erected  it.8  The 
inscription  does  not  occupy  the  whole  brick,  but  a square  or 
rectangular  space  towards  its  centre.  It  is  in  some  cases 
stamped,  in  some  impressed  with  a tool.  The  writing — as  in 
all  cuneiform  inscriptions,  excepting  those  upon  seals — is  from 
left  to  right,  and  the  lines  are  carefully  separated  from  one 
another.  Some  specimens  have  been  already  given.9 

The  tablets  of  the  Chaldseans  are  among  the  most  remarkable 
of  their  remains,  and  will  probably  one  day  throw  great  addi- 
tional light  on  the  manners  and  customs,  the  religion,  and  even, 
perhaps,  the  science  and  learning,  of  the  people.  They  are 
small  pieces  of  clay,10  somewhat  rudely  shaped  into  a form 


8  See  above,  page  64,  where  the 
translation  of  an  inscription  is  given. 
Other  translations  of  the  brick  legends 
belonging  to  the  same  king  are  the 
following : — 

1.  On  a brick  from  Mug  heir  (Ur): — 
“Urukh,  king  of  Ur,  is  he  who  has 
built  the  temple  of  the  Moon-God.” 

2.  On  a brick  from  the  same  : — “ The 
Moon-God,  his  lord,  has  caused  Urukh, 
king  of  Ur,  to  build  a temple  to  him, 
and  has  caused  him  to  build  the  enceinte 
of  Ur.” 

3.  On  a brick  from  the  same : — “The 
Moon-God,  brother’s  son  (?)  of  Anu,  and 
eldest  son  of  Belus,  his  lord,  has  caused 
Urukh,  the  pious  chief,  king  of  Ur,  to 


build  the  temple  of  Tsingathu  (?),  his 
holy  place.” 

4.  On  a brick  from  Senkareh  : — “ The 
Sun-God,  his  lord,  has  caused  Urukh, 
the  pious  chief,  king  of  Ur,  king  of  the 
land  (?)  of  the  Akkad,  to  build  a temple 
to  him.” 

5.  On  a brick  from  Niffer : — “Urukh, 
king  of  Ur,  and  king  of  the  land  (?)  of 
the  Akkad,  who  has  built  the  temple  of 
Belus.” 

9 See  above,  pp.  63,  64. 

10  The  size  varies  from  an  inch  to  four 
or  five  inches  in  length,  the  width  being 
always  less.  The  envelope  is  of  very 
thin  clay,  and  does  not  much  add  to  the 
bulk. 

F 2 


68 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IY. 


resembling  a pillow,  and  thickly  inscribed  with  cuneiform  cha- 
racters, which  are  sometimes  accompanied  by  impressions  of  the 
cylindrical  seals  so  common  in  the  museums  of  Europe.  The 
seals  are  rolled  across  the  body  of  the  document,  as  in  the 
accompanying  woodcut.  Except  where  these  impressions  occur, 
the  clay  is  commonly  covered  on  both  sides  with  minute  writing. 

What  is  most  cu- 
rious, however,  is 
that  the  documents 
thus  duly  attested 
have  in  general 
been  enveloped, 
after  they  were 
baked,  in  a cover 
of  moist  clay,  upon 
which  their  con- 
tents haVe  been 
again  inscribed,  so 
as  to  present  ex- 
ternally a dupli- 
cate of  the  writing 
within ; and  the 
tablet  in  its  cover 
has  then  been 
baked  afresh.  That 
this  was  the  pro- 
cess employed  is 
evident  from  the 
fact  that  the  inner 
side  of  the  en- 
velope bears  a cast, 

Chaldaean  tablet  (after  Layard).  jn  repef  0f  in- 

scription beneath  it.  Probably  the  object  in  view  was  greater 
security — that  if  the  external  cover  became  illegible,  or  was 
tampered  with,  there  might  be  a means  of  proving  beyond 
a doubt  what  the  document  actually  contained.  The  tablets 
in  question  have  in  a considerable  number  of  cases  been  de- 


Chap.  IV. 


WRITING  ON  SEALS. 


69 


cyphered;  they  are  for  the  most  part  deeds,  contracts,  or 
engagements  entered  into  by  private  persons  and  preserved 
among  the  archives  of  families. 

Besides  their  writings  on  clay,  the  Chaldaeans  were  in  the 
habit,  from  very  early  times,  of  engraving*  inscriptions  on  gems. 
The  signet  cylinder  of  a very  ancient  king  exhibits  that  archaic 
formation  of  letters  which  has  been  already  noted  as  appearing 
upon  some  of  the  earliest  bricks.  That  it  belongs  to  the  same 
period  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  resemblance  of  tbe  literal 
type,1 *  but  from  the  fact  that  the  same  king’s  name  appears  upon 
both.  This  signet  inscrip- 
tion— so  far  as  it  has  been 
hitherto  decyphered — is 
read  as  follows  : — “ The 
signet  of  Urukh,  the  pious 
chief,  king  of  Ur,  ...  . 

High-Priest  (?)  of  ...  . 

Niffer.”  Another  similar  relic,  belonging  to  a son  of  this 
monarch,  has  the  inscription,  4<  To  the  manifestation  of  Nergal, 
king  of  Bit-Zida,  of  Zurgulla,  for  the  saving  of  the  life  of  Ilgi, 

the  powerful  hero,  the  king  of  Ur, , son  of  Urukh. 

May  his  name  be  preserved.”^  A third  signet,  which 

belongs  to  a later  king  in  the  series,  bears  the  following  legend  : 

“ sin,  the  powerful  chief,  the  king  of  Ur,  the  king  of  the 

Kiprat-arbat  (or  four  races) his  seal.”  The  cylinders, 

however,  of  this  period  are  more  usually  without  inscriptions, 
being  often  plain,3  and  often  engraved  with  figures,  but  without 
a legend. 


jm  * m 

O' 

t ^ 1 

-UW  Ha? 

1  We  have  only  a representation  of 
this  inscription,  the  cylinder  itself 
being  lost.  The  representation  will  be 

found  in  Sir  R.  Ker  Porter’s  Travels , 

vol.  ii.  plate  79,  no.  6. 


2 I am  indebted  for  the  translation  of 
this  legend  to  Mr.  George  Smith,  of  the 
British  Museum. 

3 As.  Soc.  Journ.  vol.  xv.  pp.  272.  273. 


7 o 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


"chapter  y. 

ARTS  AND  SCIENCES. 


“ Chaldsei  cognitione  astrorum  sollertiaque  ingeniorum  antecellunt.” 

Cic.  de  Div.  i.  41. 


Among  the  arts  which  the  first  Ethiopic  settlers  on  the  shores 
of  the  Persian  Gulf  either  brought  with  them  from  their  former 
homes,  or  very  early  invented  in  their  new  abode,  must  un- 
doubtedly have  been  the  two  whereby  they  were  especially 
characterised  in  the  time  of  their  greatest  power — architecture 
and  agriculture.  Chaldsea  is  not  a country  disposing  men  to 
nomadic  habits.  The  productive  powers  of  the  soil  would  at 
once  obtrude  themselves  on  the  notice  of  the  new  comers,,  and 
would  tempt  to  cultivation  and  permanency  of  residence.  If 
the  immigrants  came  by  sea,  and  settled  first  in  the  tract  im- 
mediately bordering  upon  the  gulf,  as  seems  to  have  been  the 
notion  of  Berosus,1  their  earliest  abodes  may  have  been  of  that 
simple  character  which  can  even  now  be  witnessed  in  the  Affej 
and  Montefik  marshes — that  is  to  say,  reed  cabins,  supported  by 
the  tall  stems  of  the  growing  plants  bent  into  arches,  and  walled 
with  mats  composed  of  flags  or  sedge.2  Houses  of  this  descrip- 
tion last  for  forty  or  fifty  years,3  and  would  satisfy  the  ideas  of  a 
primitive  race.  When  greater  permanency  began  to  be  required, 
palm-beams  might  take  the  place  of  the  reed  supports,  and 
wattles  plastered  with  mud  that  of  the  rush  mats ; in  this  way 


1 Berosus,  Fr.  1,  § 3. 

2 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp. 
554,  555 ; Loftus,  Chaldosa  and  Susiana, 
p.  91 ; Journal  of  Geographical  Society , 

vol.  xxvi.  p.  137. 

3 “We  were  conducted  to  the  muthif 
or  reception-hut  of  the  chief,  which 
resembled  the  other  habitations  of  the 


place,  but  was  of  gigantic  size,  forty 
feet  long  and  eighteen  feet  high.  It 
boasted  the  almost  fabulous  age  for  a 
reed  building  (if  the  Arabs  might  be 
credited)  of  no  less  than  half  a century, 
and  appeared  likely  to  last  as  long 
again.”  (Loftus,  Chaldosa  and  Susiana , 
p.  92.) 


Chap.  Y. 


ARTS  AND  SCIENCES. 


71 


habitations  would  soon  be  produced  quite  equal  to  those  in 
which  the  bulk  of  mankind  reside,  even  at  the  present  day. 

In  process  of  time,  however,  a fresh  want  would  be  felt. 
Architecture,  as  has  been  well  observed,  has  its  origin,  not  in 
nature  only,  but  in  religion.4  The  common  worship  of  God 
requires  temples  ; and  it  is  soon  desired  to  give  to  these  sacred 
edifices  a grandeur,  a dignity,  and  a permanency  corresponding 
to  the  nature  of  the  Being  worshipped  in  them.  Hence  in 
most  countries  recourse  is  had  to  stone,  as  the  material  of 
greatest  strength  and  durability ; and  by  its  means  buildings 
are  raised  which  seem  almost  to  reach  the  heaven  whereof  they 
witness.  In  Babylonia,  as  it  has  been  already  observed,5  this 
material  was  entirely  wanting.  Nowhere  within  the  limits  of 
the  alluvium  was  a quarry  to  be  found ; and  though  at  no  very 
great  distance,  on  the  Arabian  border,  a coarse  sandstone  might 
have  been  obtained,  yet  in  primitive  times,  before  many  canals 
were  made,  the  difficulty  of  transporting  this  weighty  substance 
across  the  soft  and  oozy  soil  of  the  plain  would  necessarily 
have  prevented  its  adoption  generally,  or,  indeed,  anywhere, 
except  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  rocky  region.  Accord- 
ingly we  find  that  stone  was  never  adopted  in  Babylonia  as  a 
building  material,  except  to  an  extremely  small  extent ; and 
that  the  natives  were  forced,  in  its  default,  to  seek  for  the  grand 
edifices,  which  they  desired  to  build,  a different  substance. 

The  earliest  traditions,6  and  the  existing  remains  of  the 
earliest  buildings,  alike  inform  us  that  the  material  adopted 
was  brick.  An  excellent  clay  is  readily  procurable  in  all  parts 
of  the  alluvium ; and  this,  when  merely  exposed  to  the  intense 
heat  of  an  Eastern  sun  for  a sufficient  period,  or  still  more  when 
kiln-dried,  constitutes  a very  tolerable  substitute  for  the  stone 
employed  by  most  nations.  The  baked  bricks,  even  of  the 
earliest  times,  are  still  sound  and  hard;  while  the  sun-dried 
bricks,  though  they  have  often  crumbled  to  dust  or  blended 
together  in  one  solid  earthen  mass,  yet  sometimes  retain  their 
shape  and  original  character  almost  unchanged,  and  offer  a 

4 SMeglitz,  quoted  in  Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities,  ad  yoc. 

Architecture.  5 See  above,  p.  38.  6 Gen.  xi.  3. 


7 2 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


stubborn  resistance  to  the  excavator.7  In  the  most  ancient  of 
the  Chaldsean  edifices  we  occasionally  find,  as  in  the  Bowariyeh 
ruin  at  Warka,8  the  entire  structure  composed  of  the  inferior 
material ; but  the  more  ordinary  practice  is  to  construct  the 
mass  of  the  building  in  this  way,  and  then  to  cover  it  com- 
pletely with  a facing  of  burnt  brick,  which  sometimes  extends  to 
as  much  as  ten  feet  in  thickness.  The  burnt  brick  was  thus 
made  to  protect  the  unburnt  from  the  influence  of  the  weather, 
while  labour  and  fuel  were  greatly  economised  by  the  employ- 
ment to  so  large  an  extent  of  the  natural  substance.  The  size 
and  colour  of  the  bricks  vary.  The  general  shape  is  square,  or 
nearly  so,  while  the  thickness  is,  to  modern  ideas,  dispropor- 
tionately small ; it  is  not,  however,  so  small  & in  the  bricks  of 
the  Romans.  The  earliest  of  the  baked  bricks  hitherto  dis- 
covered in  Chaldaea  are  11 J inches  square,  and  2J  inches  thick,9 
while  the  Roman  are  often  15  inches  square,  and  only  an  inch 
and  a quarter  thick.1  The  baked  bricks  of  later  date  are  of 
larger  size  than  the  earlier  ; they  are  commonly  about  13  inches 
square,  with  a thickness  of  three  inches.2  The  best  quality  of 
baked  brick  is  of  a yellowish-white  tint,  and  very  much  re- 
sembles our  Stourbridge  or  fire  brick ; another  kind,  extremely 
hard,  but  brittle,  is  of  a blackish  blue ; a third,  the  coarsest  of 
all,  is  slack-dried,  and  of  a pale  red.  The  earliest  baked  bricks 
are  of  this  last  colour.3  The  sun-dried  bricks  have  even  more 
variety  of  size  than  the  baked  ones.  They  are  sometimes  as 
large  as  16  inches  square  and  seven  inches  thick,  sometimes  as 
small  as  six  inches  square  by  two  thick.4  Occasionally,  though 
not  very  often,  bricks  are  found  differing  altogether  in  shape 
from  those  above  described,  being  formed  for  special  purposes. 
Of  this  kind  are  the  triangular  bricks  used  at  the  corners  of 
walls,  intended  to  give  greater  regularity  to  the  angles  than 
would  otherwise  be  attained ; 5 and  the  wedge-shaped  bricks, 


7 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv. 
pp.  263  and  405. 

8 This  ruin  is  carefully  described  by 
Mr.  Loftus  in  his  Chaldaea  and  Susiana, 
pp.  167-170. 

9 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 
xv.  p.  261. 


1 Wyttenbach,  Guide  to  the  Roman 
Antiquities  of  Treves,  p.  42. 

2 Rich,  First  Memoir , p.  61. 

3 Loftus,  p.  130. 

4 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 

pp.  263,  264.  5 Ibid.  p.  266. 


Chap.  V. 


ARCHITECTURE. 


73 


formed  to  be  employed  in  arches,  which  were  known  and  used 
by  this  primitive  people.6 

The  modes  of  applying  these  materials  to  building  purposes 
were  various.  Sometimes  the  crude  and  the  burnt  brick  were 
used  in  alternate  layers,  each  layer  being  several  feet  in  thick- 
ness;7 more  commonly  the  crude  brick  was  used  (as  already 
noticed)  for  the  internal  parts  of  the  building,  and  a facing  of 
burnt  brick  protected  the  whole  from  the  weather.  Occasionally 
the  mass  of  an  edifice  was  composed  entirely  of  crude  brick ; 
but  in  such  cases  special  precautions  had  to  be  taken  to  secure 
the  stability  of  this  comparatively  frail  material.  In  the  first 
place,  at  intervals  of  four  or  five  feet,  a thick  layer  of  reed 
matting  was  interposed  along  the  whole  extent  of  the  building, 
which  appears  to  have  been  intended  to  protect  the  earthy  mass 
from  disintegration,  by  its  projection  beyond  the  rest  of  the 
external  surface.  The  readers  of  Herodotus  are  familiar  with 
this  feature,  which  (according  to  him)  occurred  in  the  massive 
walls  wrhereby  Babylon  wras  surrounded.8  If  this  was  really  the 
case,  we  may  conclude  that  those  walls  were  not  composed  of 
burnt  brick,  as  he  imagined,  but  of  the  sun-dried  material. 
Reeds  were  never  employed  in  buildings  composed  of  burnt 
brick,  being  useless  in  such  cases  ; where  their  impression  is 
found,  as  not  unfrequently  happens,  on  bricks  of  this  kind,  the 
brick  has  been  laid  upon  reed  matting  when  in  a soft  state,  and 
afterwards  submitted  to  the  action  of  fire.  In  edifices  of  crude 
brick,  the  reeds  were  no  doubt  of  great  service,  and  have  enabled 
some  buildings  of  the  kind  to  endure  to  the  present  day.  They 
are  very  strikingly  conspicuous  where  they  occur,  since  they 
stripe  the  whole  building  with  continuous  horizontal  lines, 
having  at  a distance  somewhat  the  effect  of  the  courses  of  dark 
marble  in  an  Italian  structure  of  the  Byzantine  period. 

Another  characteristic  of  the  edifices  in  which  crude  brick  is 
thus  largely  employed,  is  the  addition  externally  of  solid  and 
massive  buttresses  of  the  burnt  material.  These  buttresses  have 


6 Loftus,  p.  133 ; Journal  of  Asiatic 
Society,  1.  s.  c.  The  “moulded  semi- 

circular bricks”  found  at  Warka 

(.Loftus,  p.  175)  are  probably  of  the 


Babylonian,  not  the  Chaldaean,  period. 

7 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 

xv.  p.  263. 

8 Herod,  i.  179. 


7 4 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


sometimes  a very  considerable  projection ; they  are  broad,  but 
not  high,  extending  less  than  half  way  up  the  walls  against 
which  they  are  placed. 

Two  kinds  of  cement  are  used  in  the  early  structures.  One 
is  a coarse  clay  or  mud,  which  is  sometimes  mixed  with  chopped 
straw  ; the  other  is  bitumen.  This  last  is  of  excellent  quality, 
and  the  bricks  which  it  unites  adhere  often  so  firmly  together 
that  they  can  with  difficulty  be  separated.9  As  a general  rule, 
in  the  early  buildings,  the  crude  brick  is  laid  in  mud,  while  the 
bitumen  is  used  to  cement  together  the  burnt  bricks. 

These  general  remarks  will  receive  their  best  illustration  from 
a detailed  description  of  the  principal  early  edifices  which  recent 
researches  in  Low'er  Mesopotamia  have  revealed  to  us.  These 
are  for  the  most  part  temples;  but  in  one  or  two  cases  the 
edifice  explored  is  thought  to  have  been  a residence,  so  that  the 
domestic  architecture  of  the  period  may  be  regarded  as  known 
to  us,  at  least  in  some  degree.  The  temples  most  carefully 
examined  hitherto  are  those  at  Warka,  Mugheir,  and  Abu- 
Shalirein,  the  first  of  which  was  explored  by  Mr.  Loftus  in  1854, 
the  second  by  Mr.  Taylor  in  the  same  year,  and  the  third  by 
the  same  traveller  in  1855. 


Bowariyeh. 


The  Warka  ruin  is  called  by  the  natives  Bowariyeh,  which 
signifies  “ reed  mats,”  in  allusion  to  a peculiarity,  already  noticed, 


9 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  169. 


Chap.  V. 


ARCHITECTURE. 


75 


in  its  construction.  It  is  at  once  the  most  central  and  the 
loftiest  ruin  in  the  place.  At  first  sight  it  appears  to  have  been 
a cone  or  pyramid ; but  further  examination  proves  that  it  was 
in  reality  a tower,  200  feet  square  at  the  base,,  built  in  two 
stories,  the  lower  story  being  composed  entirely  of  sun-dried 
bricks  laid  in  mud,  and  protected  at  intervals  of  four  or  five  feet 
by  layers  of  reeds,  while  the  upper  one  was  composed  of  the 
same  material,  faced  with  burnt  brick.  Of  the  upper  stage  very 
little  remains;  and  this  little  is  of  a later  date  than  the  inferior 
story,  which  bears  marks  of  a very  high  antiquity.  The  sun- 
dried  bricks  whereof  the  lower  story  is  composed,  are  w rudely 
moulded  of  very  incoherent  earth,  mixed  with  fragments  of 
pottery  and  freshwater  shells,”  and  vary  in  size  and  shape,  being 
sometimes  square,  seven  inches  each  way ; sometimes  oblong, 
nine  inches  by  seven,  and  from  three  to  three  and  a half  inches 
thick.1  The  whole  present  height  of  the  building  is  estimated 
at  100  feet  above  the  level  of  the  plain.  Its  summit,  except 
where  some  slight  remains  of  the  second  story  constitute  an  in- 
terruption, is  “ perfectly  flat,”  and  probably  continues  very  much 
in  the  condition  in  which  it  was  when  the  lower  stage  was  first 
built.  This  stage,  being  built  of  crude  brick,  was  necessarily 
weak ; it  is  therefore  supported  by  four  massive  buttresses  of 
baked  brick,  each  placed  exactly  in  the  centre  of  one  of  the 
sides,  and  carried  to  about  one-third  of  the  height.  Each 
buttress  is  nineteen  feet  high,  six  feet  one  inch  wide,  and  seven 
and  a half  feet  in  depth  ; and  each  is  divided  down  the  middle 
by  a receding  space,  one  foot  nine  inches  in  width.  All  the 
bricks  composing  the  buttresses  are  inscribed,  and  are  very  firmly 
cemented  together  with  bitumen,  in  thick  layers.  The  buttresses 
were  entirely  hidden  under  the  mass  of  rubbish  which  had  fallen 
from  the  building,  chiefly  from  the  upper  story,  and  only  became 
apparent  when  Mr.  Loftus  made  his  excavations.2 

It  is  impossible  to  reconstruct  the  Bowariveh  ruin  from  the 
facts  and  measurements  hitherto  supplied  to  us ; even  the  height 


1 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  168. 

2 See  this  traveller’s  account  of  his  labours  ( Chaldcea  and  Susiana , pp.  167-170). 


;6 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


of  the  first  story  is  at  present  uncertain ; 3 and  we  have  no  means 
of  so  much  as  conjecturing  the  height  of  the  second.  The  exact 
emplacement  of  the  second  upon  the  first  is  also  doubtful,  while 
the  original  mode  of  access  is  undiscovered  ; and  thus  the  plan 
of  the  building  is  in  many  respects  still  defective.  We  only 
know  that  it  .was  a square ; that  it  had  two  stories  at  the  least ; 
and  that  its  entire  height  above  the  plain  considerably  exceeded 
100  feet. 


Mugheir  Temple. 


The  temple  at  Mugheir  has  been  more  accurately  examined. 
On  a mound  or  platform  of  some  size,  raised  about  twenty  feet 
above  the  level  of  the  plain,  there  stands  a rectangular  edifice, 
consisting  at  present  of  two  stories,  both  of  them  ruined  in  parts, 
and  buried  to  a considerable  extent  in  piles  of  rubbish  composed 
of  their  debris.  The  angles  of  the  building  exactly  face  the  four 


3 The  whole  building  is  said  to  be 
100  feet  above  the  surface  of  the  plain  ; 
but  we  are  not  told  what  is  the  height 
from  the  plain  of  the  mound  or  plat- 
form upon  which  the  temple  stands ; 


nor  what  height  the  fragment  of  the 
second  story  attains.  All  that  can  be 
gathered  from  Mr.  Loftus  is  that  the 
first  story  was  at  least  46  feet  high. 


Chap.  V. 


ARCHITECTURE. 


77 


cardinal  points.4  It  is  not  a square,  but  a parallelogram,  having 
two  longer  and  two  shorter  sides.  The  longer  sides  front  to  the 
north-east  and  south-west  respectively,  and  measure  198  feet ; 
while  the  shorter  sides,  which  face  the  north-west  and  the  south- 
east, measure  133  feet.  The  present  height  of  the  basement 
story  is  27  feet ; but,  allowing  for  the  concealment  of  the  lower 
part  by  the  rubbish,  and  the  destruction  of  the  upper  part  by 
the  hand  of  time,  we  may  presume  that  the  original  height  was 
little,  if  at  all,  short  of  40  feet.  The  interior  of  this  story  is 
built  of  crude  or  sun-dried  bricks  of  small  size,  laid  in  bitumen ; 
but  it  is  faced  throughout  with  a wall,  ten  feet  in  thickness,  com- 
posed of  red  kiln-dried  bricks,  likewise  cemented  with  bitumen. 
This  external  wall  is  at  once  strengthened  and  diversified  to  the 
eye  by  a number  of  shallow  buttresses  or  pilasters  in  the  same 
material ; of  these  there  are  nine,  including  the  corner  ones,  on 
the  longer,  and  six  on  the  shorter  sides.  The  width  of  the  but- 
tresses is  eight  feet,  and  their  projection  a little  more  than  a 
foot.  The  walls  and  buttresses  alike  slope  inwards  at  an  angle 
of  nine  degrees.  On  the  north-eastern  side  of  the  building  there 
is  a staircase  nine  feet  wide,  with  sides  or  balustrades  three  feet 
wide,  which  leads  up  from  the  platform  to  the  top  of  the  first 
story.  It  has  also  been  conjectured  that  there  was  a second  or 
grand  staircase  on  the  south-east  face,  equal  in  width  to  the 
second  story  of  the  building,  and  thus  occupying  nearly  the 
whole  breadth  of  the  structure  on  that  side.5  A number  of 
narrow  slits  or  air-holes  are  carried  through  the  building  from 
side  to  side ; they  penetrate  alike  the  walls  and  buttresses, 
and  must  have  tended  to  preserve  the  dryness  of  the  structure. 

The  second  story  is,  like  the  first,  a parallelogram,  and  not  of 
very  different  proportions.6  Its  longer  sides  measure  119  feet, 
and  its  shorter  ones  75  feet  at  the  base.  Its  emplacement  upon 
the  first  story  is  exact  as  respects  the  angles,  but  not  central  as 
regards  the  four  sides.  While  it  is  removed  from  the  south- 


4 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  128. 

According  to  Mr.  Loftus,  this  emplace- 
ment “is  observable  in  all  edifices 

(temples  ?)  of  true  Chaldeean  origin.” 


5 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  129. 

6 The  proportions  of  the  lower  stage 
are  almost  exactly  as  3 to  2.  Those  of 

| the  upper  are  as  3T’5  to  2. 


78 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


eastern  edge  a distance  of  47  feet,  from  the  north-western  it  is 
distant  only  30  feet.  From  the  two  remaining  sides  its  distance 

The  present  height  of  the  second 
story,  including  the  rubbish  upon 
its  top,  is  19  feet;  but  we  may 
reasonably  suppose  that  the  ori- 
ginal height  was  much  greater. 
The  material  of  which  its  inner 
structure  is  composed,  seems  to  be 
chiefly  (or  wholly)  partially-burnt 
brick,  of  a light  red  colour,  laid 
in  a cement  composed  of  lime  and 
ashes.  This  central  mass  is  faced 
with  kiln-dried  bricks  of  large 
size  and  excellent  quality,  also 
laid,  except  on  the  north-west 
face,7  in  lime  mortar.  No  but- 
tresses and  no  staircase  are  trace- 
able on  this  story;  though  it  is 
possible  that  on  the  south-east  side  the  grand  staircase  may 
have  run  the  whole  height  of  both  stories. 

According  to  information  received  by  Mr.  Taylor  from  the 
Arabs  of  the  vicinity,8  there  existed,  less  than  half  a century  ago, 
some  remains  of  a third  story,  on  the  summit  of  the  rubbish 
which  now  crowns  the  second.  This  building  is  described  as  a 
room  or  chamber,  and  was  probably  the  actual  shrine  of  the 
god  in  whose  honour  the  whole  structure  was  erected.  Mr. 
Taylor  discovered  a number  of  bricks  or  tiles  glazed  with  a 
blue  enamel,  and  also  a number  of  large  copper  nails,  at  such  a 
height  in  the  rubbish  wThich  covers  up  much  of  the  second  story  ? 
that  he  thinks  they  could  only  have  come  from  this  upper 
chamber.  The  analogy  of  later  Babylonian  buildings,  as  of  the 
Birs-Mmrud  and  the  temple  of  Belus  at  Babylon,9  confirms  this 
view,  and  makes  it  probable  that  the  early  Chaldaean  temple  was 


is  apparently  about  28  feet. 


Ground-plan  of  Mugheir  Temple. 


xv.  p.  261.) 

8 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 
xv.  p.  264.  9 Herod,  i.  181. 


7 On  this  side  the  material  used  is 

bitumen.  (See  Mr.  Taylor’s  article  in 

the  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 


Chap.  V. 


ARCHITECTURE. 


79 


a building  in  three  stages,  of  which  the  first  and  second  were 
solid  masses  of  brickwork,  ascended  by  steps  on  the  outside, 
while  the  third  was  a small  house  or  chamber  highly  ornamented, 
containing  the  image  and  shrine  of  the  god. 


In  conclusion,  it  must  be  observed  that  only  the  lower  story 
of  the  Mugheir  temple  exhibits  the  workmanship  of  the  old  or 
Chaldsean  period.  Clay  cylinders  found  in  the  upper  story  in- 
form us  that  in  its  present  condition  this  story  is  the  work  of 
Nabonidus,  the  last  of  the  Babylonian  kings ; and  most  of  its 
bricks  bear  his  stamp.  Some,  however,  have  the  stamp  of  the 
same  monarch  who  built  the  lower  story  ; 1 and  this  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  two  stories  are  a part  of  the  original  design, 
and  therefore  that  the  idea  of  building  in  stages  belongs  to  the 
first  kingdom  and  to  primitive  times.  There  is  no  evidence  to 
prove  whether  the  original  edifice  had,  or  had  not,  a third  story  ; 
since  the  chamber  seen  by  the  Arabs  was  no  doubt  a late  Baby- 
lonian work.  The  third  story  of  the  accompanying  sketch  must 
therefore  be  regarded  as  conjectural. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  our  present  purpose  to  detain  the  reader 
with  a minute  description  of  the  ancient  temple  at  Abu-Shahrein. 
The  general  character  of  this  building  seems  to  have  very  closely 
resembled  that  of  the  Mugheir  temple.  Its  angles  fronted  the 
cardinal  points ; it  had  two  stories,  and  an  ornamented  chamber 
at  the  top  ; it  was  faced  with  burnt  brick,  and  strengthened  by 
buttresses  ; and  in  most  other  respects ‘followed  the  type  of  the 
Mugheir  edifice.2  Its  only  very  notable  peculiarities  are  the 


1 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 
xv.  p.  264,  note. 

2 See  Mr.  Taylor’s  description  in  the 


Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society . vol.  xv. 
pp.  405-408. 


So 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


partial  use  of  stone  in  the  construction,  and  the  occurrence  of  a 
species  of  pillar,  very  curiously  composed.  The  artificial  plat- 
form on  which  the  temple  stands  is  made  of  beaten  clay,  cased 
with  a massive  wall  of  sandstone  and  limestone,  in  some  places 
twenty  feet  thick.  There  is  also  a stone,  or  rather  marble,  stair- 
case which  leads  up  from  the  platform  to  the  summit  of  the 
first  story,  composed  of  small  polished  blocks,  twenty-two  inches 
long,  thirteen  broad,  and  four  and  a half  thick.  The  bed  of  the 
staircase  is  made  of  sun-dried  brick,  and  the  marble  was  fastened 
to  this  substratum  by  copper  bolts,  some  portion  of  which  was 
found  by  Mr.  Taylor  still  adhering  to  the  blocks.3  At  the  foot 
of  the  staircase  there  appear  to  have  stood  two  columns,  one  on 
either  side  of  it.  The  construction  of  these  columns  is  very  sin- 
gular. A circular  nucleus  composed  of  sandstone  slabs  and  small 
cylindrical  pieces  of  marble  disposed  in  alternate  layers,  was 
coated  externally  with  coarse  lime,  mixed  with  small  stones  and 
pebbles,  until  by  means  of  many  successive  layers  the  pillar  had 
attained  the  desired  bulk  and  thickness.  Thus  the  stone  and 
marble  were  entirely  concealed  under  a thick  coating  of  plaster; 
and  a smoothness  was  given  to  the  outer  surface,  which  it  would 
have  otherwise  been  difficult  to  obtain. 

The  date  of  the  Abu-Shahrein  temple  is  thought  to  be  con- 
siderably later  than  that  of  the  other  buildings  above  described  ;4 
and  the  pillars  would  seem  to  be  a refinement  on  the  simplicity 
of  the  earlier  times.  The  use  of  stone  is  to  be  accounted  for, 
not  so  much  by  the  advance  of  architectural  science,  as  by  the 
near  vicinity  of  the  Arabian  hills,  from  which  that  material 
could  be  readily  derived.5 

It  is  evident,  that  if  the  Chaldsean  temples  were  of  the  cha- 
racter and  construction  which  we  have  gathered  from  their 
remains,  they  could  have  possessed  no  great  architectural 
beauty,  though  they  may  not  have  lacked  a certain  grandeur. 
In  the  dead  level  of  Babylonia,  an  elevation  even  of  100  or 
150  feet  must  have  been  impressive;6  and  the  plain  massive- 


3 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 
p.  406,  note. 

4 See  below,  chapter  viii.  p.  166. 


5 Supra,  ch.  i.  p.  25. 

6 Mr.  Loftus  says — “ I know  of  no- 
thing more  exciting  or  impressive  than 


Chap.  Y, 


ARCHITECTURE. 


8 1 


ness  of  the  structures  no  doubt  added  to  their  grand  effect  on 
the  beholder.  But  there  was  singularly  little  in  the  buildings, 
architecturally  viewed,  to  please  the  eye  or  gratify  the  sense  of 
beauty.  No  edifices  in  the  world — not  even  the  Pyramids — 
are  more  deficient  in  external  ornament.  The  buttresses  and 
the  air-holes,  which  alone  break  the  flat  uniformity  of  the  walls, 
are  intended  simply  for  utility,  and  can  scarcely  be  said  to  be 
much  embellishment.  If  any  efforts  were  made  to  delight  by 
the  ordinary  resources  of  ornamental  art,  it  seems  clear  that 
such  efforts  did  not  extend  to  the  whole  edifice,  but  were  con- 
fined to  the  shrine  itself — the  actual  abode  of  the  god — the 
chamber  which  crowned  the  whole,  and  was  alone,  strictly 
speaking,  “the  temple.”7  Even  here  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  the  building  had  externally  much  beauty.  No 
fragments  of  architraves  or  capitals,  no  sculptured  ornaments  of 
any  kind,  have  been  found  among  the  heaps  of  rubbish  in  which 
Chaldsean  monuments  are  three-parts  buried.  The  ornaments 
which  have  been  actually  discovered,  are  such  as  suggest  the 
idea  of  internal  rather  than  external  decoration ; and  they 
render  it  probable  that  such  decoration  was,  at  least  in  some 
cases,  extremely  rich.  The  copper  nails  and  blue  enamelled 
tiles  found  high-  up  in  the  Mugheir  mound,  have  been  already 
noticed.8  At  Abu-Shahrein  the  ground  about  the  basement 
of  the  second  story  was  covered  with  small  pieces  of  agate, 
alabaster,  and  marble,  finely  cut  and  polished,  from  half  an  inch 
to  two  inches  long,  and  half  an  inch  (or  somewhat  less)  in 
breadth,  each  with  a hole  drilled  through  its  back,  containing 
often  a fragment  of  a copper  bolt.  It  was  also 
strewn  less  thickly  with  small  plates  of  pure  gold, 
and  with  a number  of  gold-headed  or  gilt-headed 
nails,9  used  apparently  to  attach  the  gold  plates  to  the  internal 
plaster  or  wood- work.  These  fragments  seem  to  attest  the  high 


the  first  sight  of  one  of  these  great 
Chaldsean  piles,  looming  in  solitary- 
grandeur  from  the  surrounding  plains 
and  marshes.”  ( Chaldwa  and  Susiana , 

p.  113.) 

' See  Herod,  i.  181,  where  the  stages 

YOL.  I. 


(7 rvpyoi)  are  carefully  distinguished 
from  the  temple  (vrjos)  at  the  summit. 

8 See  above,  p.  78. 

9 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv. 
p.  407. 


G 


82 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


ornamentation  of  the  shrine  in  this  instance,  which  we  have  no 
reason  to  regard  as  singular  or  in  any  way  exceptional. 

The  Chaldsean  remains  which  throw  light  upon  the  domestic 
architecture  of  the  people  are  few  and  scanty.  A small  house 
was  disinterred  by  Mr.  Taylor  at  Mugheir,  and  the  plan  of  some 
chambers  was  made  out  at  Abu-Shahrein ; but  these  are  hitherto 
the  only  specimens  which  can  be  confidently  assigned  to  the 
Chaldean  period.  The  house  stood  on  a platform  of  sun-dried 
bricks,  paved  on  the  top  with  burnt  bricks.  It  was  built  in 
the  form  of  a cross,  but  with  a good  deal  of  irregularity,  every 
Avail  being  somewhat  longer  or  shorter  than  the  others.  The 

material  used  in  its  construction  was 
burnt  brick,  the  outer  layer  imbedded 
in  bitumen,  and  the  remainder  in  a 
cement  of  mud.  Externally  the  house 
was  ornamented  with  perpendicular 
stepped  recesses,1  while  internally  the 
bricks  had  often  a thin  coating  of 
gypsum  or  enamel,  upon  which  cha- 
racters were  inscribed.  The  floors  of 

brick,  laid  in  bitumen.  Two  of  the 
doorways  were  arched,  the  arch  ex- 
tending through  the  whole  thickness 
of  the  walls ; it  was  semicircular,  and 
was  constructed  with  bricks  made 
wedge-shaped  for  the  purpose.  A good 
deal  of  charred  date-wood  was  found 
in  the  house,  probably  the  remains  of 
rafters  which  had  supported  the  roof.2 

The  chambers  at  Abu-Shahrein  were 
of  sun-dried  brick,  with  an  internal 
covering  of  fine  plaster,  ornamented 
Terra  cotta  cone.  Actual  size.  paint.  In  one  the  ornamentation 

consisted  of  a series  of  red,  black,  and  white  bands,  three  inches 


the  chambers  were  paved  with  burnt 


Loftus,  Chaldtxa  andSusiana,  p.  133.  2 Journal  of  As.  Soc.  vol.  xv.  pp.  265,  266. 


Chap.  Y. 


ARCHITECTURE. 


83 


in  breadth ; in  another  was  represented,  but  very  rudely,  the 
hgure  of  a man  holding  a bird  on  his  wrist,  with  a smaller 


figure  near  him,  in  red  paint.3  The  favourite  external  orna- 
mentation for  houses  seems  to  have  been  by  means  of  coloured 

3 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  pp.  408,  410. 

G 2 


34 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


cones  in  terra  cotta,  which  were  imbedded  in  moist  mud  or 
plaster,  and  arranged  into  a variety  of  patterns.4 

But  little  can  be  said  as  to  the  plan  on  which  houses  were 
built.  The  walls  were  generally  of  vast  thickness,  the  chambers 
long  and  narrow,  with  the  outer  doors  opening  directly  into 
them.  The  rooms  ordinarily  led  into  one  another,  passages 
being  rarely  found.  Squared  recesses,  sometimes  stepped  or 


Ground-plan  of  chambers  excavated  at  Abu-Shahrein. 


dentated,  were  common  in  the  rooms ; and  in  the  arrangement 
of  these  something  of  symmetry  is  observable,  as  they  fre- 
quently correspond  to  or  face  each  other.  The  roofs  were  pro- 
bably either  flat — beams  of  palm-wood  being  stretched  across, 
from  wall  to  wall5 — or  else  arched  with  brick.6  JSTo  indication 


4 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiano,  pp.  188, 
189.  The  building  discovered  by  Mr. 
Loftus  (from  which  the  representation 
on  p.  83  is  taken)  was  at  Warka,  and 
therefore  might  perhaps  not  be  Ghal- 
d(Ban.  The  vast  number  of  similar 
cones,  however,  which  occur  at  Abu- 
Shahrein  (, Journal  of  As.  Soc.  vol.  xv.  p. 

411)  and  other  purely  Chaldaean  ruins, 

sufficiently  indicate  the  style  of  orna- 
mentation to  belong  to  the  first  empire. 


5 Mr.  Taylor  found  remnants  of  these 
at  Mugheir.  (Journal  of  As.  Soc.  vol. 
xv.  p.  266.) 

6 Mr.  Loftus  believes  that  Chaldaean 
buildings  were  usually  roofed  in  this 
way.  ( Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  pp.  182, 
183.)  Mr.  Taylor  also  believes  that 
some  of  the  chambers  which  he  exca- 
vated must  have  been  domed.  (Journal 
of  As.  Soc.  vol.  xv.  p.  411.) 


Chap.  V. 


BURIAL-PLACES. 


85 


of  windows  has  been  found  as  yet ; but  still  it  is  thought  that 
the  chambers  were  lighted  by  them,7  only  they  were  placed 
high,  near  the  ceiling  or  roof,  and  thus  do  not  appear  in  the 
existing  ruins,  which  consist  merely  of  the  lower  portion  of 
walls,  seldom  exceeding  the  height  of  seven  or  eight  feet.  The 
doorways,  both  outer  and  inner,  are  towards  the  sides  rather 
than  in  the  centre  of  the  apartments — a feature  common  to 
Chaldsean  with  Assyrian  buildings. 

Next  to  their  edifices,  the  most  remarkable  of  the  remains 
which  the  Ohaldseans  have  left  to  after-ages,  are  their  burial- 
places.  While  ancient  tombs  are  of  very  rare  occurrence  in 
Assyria  and  Upper  Babylonia,  Chaldsea  Proper  abounds  with 
them.  It  has  been  conjectured,  with  some  show  of  reason,  that 
the  Assyrians,  in  the  time  of  their  power,  may  have  made  the 
sacred  land  of  Chaldsea  the  general  depository  of  their  dead,8 
much  in  the  same  way  as  the  Persians  even  now  use  Kerbela 
and  Nedjif  or  Meshed  Ali  as  special  cemetery  cities,  to  which 
thousands  of  corpses  are  brought  annually.9  At  any  rate,  the 
f quantity  of  human  relics  accumulated  upon  certain  Chaldsean 
sites  is  enormous,  and  seems  to  be  quite  beyond  what  the  mere 
population  of  the  surrounding  district  could  furnish.  At  Warka, 
for  instance,  excepting  the  triangular  space  between  the  three 
principal  ruins,  the  whole  remainder  of  the  platform,  the  whole 
space  within  the  walls,  and  an  unknown  extent  of  desert  beyond 
them,  are  everywhere  filled  with  human  bones  and  sepulchres.1 
In  places  coffins  are  piled  upon  coffins,  certainly  to  the  depth 
of  30,  probably  to  the  depth  of  60  feet ; and  for  miles  on  every 
side  of  the  ruins  the  traveller  walks  upon  a soil  teeming  with 
the  relics  of  ancient,  and  now  probably  extinct,  races.  Some- 
times these  relics  manifestly  belong  to  a number  of  distinct  and 
widely  separate  eras ; but  there  are  places  where  it  is  otherwise. 
However  we  may  account  for  it — and  no  account  has  been  yet 
given  which  is  altogether  satisfactory — it  seems  clear,  from  the 
comparative  homogeneousness  of  the  remains  in  some  places, 
that  they  belong  to  a single  race,  and  if  not  to  a single  period, 


7 Loftus,  p.  182. 


8 Ibid.  p.  199. 


9 Ibid.  pp.  54  and  65. 


1 Ibid.  p.  199. 


36  THE  FIRST  MONARCHY.  Chap.  Y. 

at  any  rate  to  only  two,  or,  at  the  most,  three  distinct  periods, 
so  that  it  is  no  longer  very  difficult  to  distinguish  the  more 
ancient  from  the  later  relics.2  Such  is  the  character  of  the 
remains  at  Mugheir,  which  are  thought  to  contain  nothing  of 
later  date  than  the  close  of  the  Babylonian  period,  b.c.  538 ; 3 
and  such  is,  still  more  remarkably,  the  character  of  the  ruins  at 
Abu-Shahrein  and  Tel-el-Lahm,  which  seem  to  be  entirely,  or 
almost  entirely,  Chaldsean.  In  the  following  account  of  the 
coffins  and  mode  of  burial  employed  by  the  early  Chaldaeans, 
examples  will  be  drawn  from  these  places  only ; since  otherwise 
we  should  be  liable  to  confound  together  the  productions  of  very 
different  ages  and  peoples. 

The  tombs  to  which  an  archaic  character  most  certainly 
attaches  are  of  three  kinds — brick  vaults,  clay  coffins  shaped 

like  a dish-cover,  and 
coffins  in  the  same  ma- 
terial, formed  of  two 
large  jars  placed  mouth 
to  mouth,  and  cemented 
together  with  bitumen. 
The  brick  vaults  are 
found  chiefly  at  Mug- 
heir.  They  are  seven 
feet  long,  three  feet 
seven  inches  broad,  and 
five  feet  high,  composed 
of  sun-dried  bricks  im- 
bedded in  mud,  and  ex- 
hibit a very  remarkable 
form  and  construction  of 
the  arch.  The  side  walls 
of  the  vaults  slope  out- 
wards as  they  ascend; 
and  the  arch  is  formed,  like  those  in  Egyptian  buildings  and 


Brick  vault  at  Mugheir. 


- Position  of  the  relics  in  situ , cha- 
racter of  the  tomb  or  coffin,  and  ap- 
parent antiquity,  or  the  reverse,  of  the 


enclosed  vessels  and  ornaments,  will 
commonly  determine  the  age  without 
much  uncertainty.  3 Loftus,  p.  134. 


Chap.  Y. 


TOMBS. 


87 


Scythian  tombs,4  by  each  successive  layer  of  bricks,  from  the 
point  where  the  arch  begins,  a little  overlapping  the  last,  till 
the  two  sides  of  the  roof  are  brought  so  near  together  that 
the  aperture,  may  be  closed  by  a single  brick.  The  floor  of  the 
vaults  was  paved  with  brick  similar  to  that  used  for  the  roof  and 
sides ; on  this  floor  was  commonly  spread  a matting  of  reeds, 
and  the  body  was  laid  upon  the  matting.  It  was  commonly 
turned  on  its  left  side,  the  right  arm  falling  towards  the  left, 
and  the  fingers  resting  on  the  edge  of  a copper  bowl,  usually 
placed  on  the  palm  of  the  left  hand.  The  head  was  pillowed  on 
a single  sun-dried  brick.  Various  articles  of  ornament  and  use 
were  interred  with  each  body,  which  will  be  more  particularly 
described  hereafter.  Food  seems  often  to  have  been  placed  in 
the  tombs,  and  jars  or  other  drinking  vessels  are  universal.  The 
brick  vaults  appear  to  have  been  family  sepulchres ; they  have 
often  received  three  or  four  bodies,  and  in  one  case  a single 
vault  contained  eleven  skeletons.5 

The  clay  coffins,  shaped  like  a dish-cover,  are  among  the  most 
curious  of  the  sepulchral  remains  of  antiquity.  On  a platform 
of  sun-dried  brick  is  laid  a mat,  exactly  similar  to  those  in 
common  use  among  the  Arabs  of  the  country  at  the  present 
day;  and  hereon  lies  the  skeleton,  disposed  as  in  the  brick 
vaults,  and  surrounded  by  utensils  and  ornaments.  Mat,  skele- 
ton, and  utensils  are  then  concealed  by  a huge  cover  in  burnt 
clay,  formed  of  a single  piece,  which  is  commonly  seven  feet 
long,  two  or  three  feet  high,  and  two  feet  and  a half  broad  at 
the  bottom.  It  is  rarely  that  modern  potters  produce  articles  of 
half  the  size.  Externally  the  covers  have  commonly  some  slight 
ornament,  such  as  rims  and  shallow  indentations,  as  represented 
in  the  sketch  overleaf  (No.  1).  Internally  they  are  plain.  Not 
more  than  two  skeletons  have  ever  been  found  under  a single 
cover;  and  in  these  cases  they  were  the  skeletons  of  a male  and 
a female.  Children  were  interred  separately,  under  covers  about 
half  the  size  of  those  for  adults.  Tombs  of  this  kind  commonly 


4 See  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  iii.  p.  61. 

5 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  pp.  271-274. 


88 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


occur  at  some  considerable  depth.  None  were  discovered  at 
Mugheir  nearer  the  surface  than  seven  or  eight  feet.6 


No.  1. 


No.  2. 


Chaldsean  dish-cover  tombs. 


a.  Sun-dried  brick  under  head. 

b.  Copper  bowl. 

c.  Small  cylinder  of  meteoric  stone ; remains 
of  thread  going  round  arm-bone. 

d.  Pieces  of  cylindrical  meteoric  stone. 


e.  Pieces  of  bamboo. 

f.  Jars  and  utensils  for  food  and  water,  made 
of  baked  clay ; remains  of  date-stones  in  the 
shallow  dish. 


The  third  kind  of  tomb,  common  both  at  Mugheir  and  at  Tel- 
el-Lahm,7  is  almost  as  eccentric  as  the  preceding.  Two  large 


6 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  p.  269. 


7 Ibid.  pp.  413,  414. 


Chap.  V. 


COFFINS. 


89 


open-mouthed  jars  (a  and  b),  shaped  like  the  largest  of  the 
water-jars  at  present  in  use  at  Baghdad,  are  taken,  and  the  body 
is  disposed  inside  them  with  the  usual  accompaniments  of  dishes, 
vases,  and  ornaments.  The  jars  average  from  two  and  a half 
feet  to  three  feet  in  depth,  and  have  a diameter  of  about  two 
feet ; so  that  they  would  readily  contain  a full-sized  corpse  if  it 
was  slightly  bent  at 
the  knees.  Some- 
times the  two  jars 
are  of  equal  size, 
and  are  simply 
united  at  their 
mouths  by  a layer 
of  bitumen  (d  d);  Chaldaean  jar-coffin. 

but  more  commonly  one  is  slightly  larger  than  the  other,  and 
the  smaller  mouth  is  inserted  into  the  larger  one  for  a depth 
of  three  or  four  inches,  while  a coating  of  bitumen  is  still 
applied  externally  at  the  juncture.  In  each  coffin  there  is  an 
air-hole  at  one  extremity  (< 0 ),  to  allow  the  escape  of  the  gases 
generated  during  decomposition. 

Besides  the  coffins  themselves,  some  other  curious  features 
are  found  in  the  burial-places.  The  dead  are  commonly  buried, 
not  underneath  the  natural  surface  of  the  ground,  but  in  ex- 
tensive artificial  mounds,  each  mound  containing  a vast  number 
of  coffins.  The  coffins  are  arranged  side  by  side,  often  in  several 
layers ; and  occasionally  strips  of  masonry,  crossing  each  other 
at  right  angles,  separate  the  sets  of  coffins  from  their  neigh- 
bours. The  surface  of  the  mounds  is  sometimes  paved  with 
brick ; and  a similar  pavement  often  separates  the  layers  of 
coffins  one  from  another.  But  the  most  remarkable  feature  in 
the  tomb-mounds  is  their  system  of  drainage.  Long  shafts  of 
baked  clay  extend  from  the  surface  of  the  mound  to  its  base, 
composed  of  a succession  of  rings  two  feet  in  diameter,  and  about 
a foot  and  a half  in  breadth,  joined  together  by  thin  layers  of 
bitumen.  To  give  the  rings  additional  strength,  the  sides  have 
a slight  concave  curve  (see  woodcut,  2 and  3) ; and,  still  further 
to  resist  external  pressure,  the  shafts  are  filled  from  bottom  to 


90 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


top  with  a loose  mass  of  broken  pottery.  At  the  top  the  shaft 
contracts  rapidly  by  means  of  a ring  of  a peculiar  shape  (see 
woodcut,  1) ; and  above  this  ring  are  a series  of  perforated  bricks 

leading  up  to  the  top  of  the 
mound,  the  surface  of  which 
is  so  arranged  as  to  conduct 
the  rain-water  into  these  ori- 
fices. For  the  still  more 
effectual  drainage  of  the 
mound,  the  top-piece  of  the 
shaft  immediately  below  the 
perforated  bricks,  and  also 
the  first  rings,  are  full  of 
small  holes  to  admit  any 
stray  moisture ; and  be- 
sides this,  for  the  space  of 
a foot  every  way,  the  shafts  are  surrounded  with  broken  pottery, 
so  that  the  real  diameter  of  each  drain  is  as  much  as  four  feet.8 
By  these  arrangements  the  piles  have  been  kept  perfectly  dry ; 
and  the  consequence  is  the  preservation,  to  the  present  day,  not 
only  of  the  utensils  and  ornaments  placed  in  the  tombs,  but  of 
the  very  skeletons  themselves,  which  are  seen  perfect  on  opening 
a tomb,  though  they  generally  crumble  to  dust  at  the  first 
touch.9 

The  skill  of  the  Chaldseans  as  potters  has  received  consider- 
able illustration  in  the  foregoing  pages.  No  ordinary  ingenuity 
was  needed  to  model  and  bake  the  large  vases,  and  still  larger 
covers,  which  were  the-  ordinary  receptacles  of  the  Chaldsean 
dead.  The  rings  and  top-pieces  of  the  drainage-shafts  also 
exhibit  much  skill  and  knowledge  of  principles.  Hitherto, 
however,  the  reader  has  not  been  brought  into  contact  with  any 


8 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society,  vol. 
xv.  pp.  268,  269. 

9 Ibid.  p.  272 ; Loftus,  p.  210.  Mr. 
Taylor,  however,  qualifies  this  latter 
statement.  “ Directly  on  opening  these 
covers,”  he  says,  “ were  I to  attempt  to 
touch  the  skulls  or  bones,  they  would 
fall  into  dust  almost  immediately ; but 
I found,  on  exposing  them  for  a few 


days  to  the  air,  that  they  became  quite 
hard , and  could  be  handled  with  im- 
punity.” It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
Mr.  Taylor  did  not  send  any  of  the 
skulls,  when  thus  hardened,  to  England, 
as  their  examination  would  have  been 
important  towards  determining  the 
ethnic  character  of  the  race. 


Chap.  V. 


YASES  AND  LAMPS. 


91 


specimens  of  Chaldaean  fictile  art  which  can  be  regarded  as 
exhibiting  elegance  of  form,  or,  indeed,  any  sense  of  beauty  as 


Chaldaean  vases  of  the  first  period. 


distinguished  from  utility.  Such  specimens  are,  ‘in  fact,  some- 
what scarce,  but  they  are  not  wholly  wanting.  Among  the 
vases  and  drinking-vessels  with  which  the  Chaldaean  tombs 


Chaldaean  vasea,  drinking-vessels,  and  amphora  of  the  second  period. 

abound,  while  the  majority  are  characterised  by  a certain 
rudeness  both  of  shape  and  material,10  we  occasionally  meet 

10  The  vases  represented  in  the  first  of  the  above  cuts  are  in  a coarse  clay,  mixed 
with  chopped  straw,  which  sometimes  appears  upon  the  surface. 


92 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


with  specimens  of  a higher  character,  which  would  not  shrink 
from  a comparison  with  the  ordinary  productions  of  Greek 
fictile  art.  A number  of  these  are  represented  in  the  second 
woodcut  on  the  preceding  page  which  exhibits  several  forms  not 
hitherto  published — some  taken  from  drawings  by  Mr.  Churchill, 
the  artist  who  accompanied  Mr.  Loftus  on  his  first  journey; 
others  drawn  for  the  present  work  from  vases  now  in  the  British 
^Museum. 

It  is  evident  that,  while  the  vases  of  the  first  group  are  roughly 
moulded  by  the  hand,  the  yases  and  lamps  of  the  second  have 
been  carefully  shaped  by  the  aid  of  the  potter’s  wheel.  These 


Chaldsean  lamps  of  the  second  period. 


last  are  formed  of  a far  finer  clay  than  the  earlier  specimens, 
and  have  sometimes  a slight  glaze  upon  them,  which  adds  much 
to  their  beauty. 

In  a few  instances  the  works  of  the  Chaldseans  in  this  material 
belong  to  mimetic  art,  of  which  they  are  rude  but  interesting 
specimens.  Some  of  the  primitive  graves  at  Senkareh  yielded 
tablets  of  baked  clay,  on  which  were  represented,  in  low  relief, 
sometimes  single  figures  of  men,  sometimes  groups,  sometimes 
men  in  combination  with  animals.  A scene  in  which  a lion  is 
disturbed  in  his  feast  off  a bullock,  by  a man  armed  with  a club 
and  a mace  or  hatchet,  possesses  remarkable  spirit,  and,  were  it 
not  for  the  strange  drawing  of  the  lion’s  uplifted  leg,  might  be 


Chap.  V. 


BAS-RELIEFS  — SEAL  CYLINDERS. 


93 


regarded  as  a very  creditable  performance.11  In  another,  a lion 
is  represented  devouring  a prostrate  human  being ; while  a third 
exhibits  a pugilistic  encounter  after  the  most  approved  fashion 
of  modern  England!1  It  is  perhaps  uncertain  whether  these 
tablets  belong  to  the  Chaldsean  or  to  the  Babylonian  period ; 
but  on  the  whole  their  rudeness  and  simplicity  favour  the 
earlier  rather  than  the  later  date. 

The  only  other  works  having  anything  of  an  artistic  character, 
that  can  be  distinctly  assigned  to  the  primitive  period,  are  a 
certain  number  of  engraved  cylinders,  some  of  which  are  very 
curious.  It  is  clearly  established  that  the  cylinders  in  question, 
which  are  generally  of  serpentine,  meteoric  stone,  jasper,  chalce- 
dony, or  other  similar  substance,  were  the  seals  or  signets  of 
their  possessors,  who  impressed  them  upon  the  moist  clay  which 
formed  the  ordinary  material  for  writing.2  They  are  round,  or 
nearly  so,3  and  measure  from  half-an-inch  to  three  inches  in 
length ; ordinarily  they  are  about  one-third  of  their  length  in 
diameter.  A hole  is  bored  through  the  stone  from  end  to  end, 
so  that  it  could  be  worn  upon  a string ; and  cylinders  are  found 
in  some  of  the  earliest  tombs  which 
have  been  worn  round  the  wrist  in 
this  way.4  In  early  times  they  may 
have  been  impressed  by  the  hand ; 
but  afterwards  it  was  common  to 
place  them  upon  a bronze  or  cop- 
per axis  attached  to  a handle,  by 
means  of  which  they  were  rolled 
across  the  clay  from  one  end  to  the  Seal  oylinder  on  metal  axis' 
other.5  The  cylinders  are  frequently  unengraved,  and  this  is 
most  commonly  their  condition  in  the  primitive  tombs ; but  there 
is  some  very  curious  evidence,  from  which  it  appears  that  the 


11  See  Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana, 

p.  258.  1 Ibid.  p.  257. 

2 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp. 
608,  609  ; Rawlinson’s  Herodotus , vol.  i. 
p.  336 ; Birch’s  Ancient  Pottery,  vol.  i. 

114. 

3 Sometimes  the  sides  are  slightly 
concave,  as  in  the  above  representation. 


4 Journal  of  Asiatic  Sodety , vol.  xv. 
p.  271. 

5 Mr.  Layard  found  remains  of  the 
bronze  in  one  specimen.  (. Nineveh  and 
Babylon , p.  609.)  The  above  represen- 
tation gives  the  probable  form  of  the 
bronze  setting. 


94 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


art  of  engraving  them  was  really  known  and  practised  (though 
doubtless  in  rare  instances)  at  a very  early  date.  The  signet 
cylinder  of  the  monarch  who  founded  the  most  ancient  of  the 
buildings  at  Mugheir,  Warka,  Senkareh,  and  Niffer,  and  who  thus 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  monumental  kings,  was  in  the  possession 
of  Sir  R.  Porter ; and  though  it  is  now  lost,  an  engraving  made 
from  it  is  preserved  in  his  ‘Travels.’®  The  signet  cylinder  of 
this  monarch’s  son  has  been  recently  recovered,  and  is  now  in 
the  British  Museum.  We  are  entitled  to  conclude  from  the  data 


thus  in  our  possession  that  the  art  of  cylinder-engraving  had, 
even  at  this  early  period,  made  considerable  progress.  The 
letters  of  the  inscriptions,  which  give  the  names  of  the  kings 
and  their  titles,  are  indeed  somewhat  rudely  formed,  as  they  are 
on  the  stamped  bricks  of  the  period  ; 7 but  the  figures  have  been 
as  well  cut,  and  as  flowingly  traced,  as  those  of  a much  later 
date.  It  was  thought  possible  that  the  artist  employed  by  Sir 
R.  Porter  had  given  a flattering  representation  of  his  original ; 
but  the  newly  recovered  relic,  known  as  the  “ cylinder  of  Ilgi,” 
bears  upon  it  figures  of  quite  as  great  excellence ; and  we  are 
thus  led  to  the  conclusion  that  both  mechanical  and  artistic 


a Travels  in  Georgia , Persia , &c.,  vol.  ii.  pi.  79,  fig.  6.  7 See  above,  pp.  63,  64,  69. 


Chap.  V. 


IMPLEMENTS  AND  WEAPONS. 


95 


skill  had  reached  a very  surprising  degree  of  excellence  at  the 
most  remote  period  to  which  the  Chaldoean  records  carry  us 
back. 

It  increases  the  surprise  which  we  naturally  feel  at  the  dis- 
covery of  these  re- 
lics to  reflect  upon 
the  rudeness  of  the 
implements  with 
which  such  results 
would  seem  to  have 
been  accomplished. 

In  the  primitive 
Chaldsean  ruins,  the 
implements  which 
have  been  disco- 
vered are  either  in 
stone  or  bronze. 

Iron  in  the  early 
times  is  seemingly 
unknown,  and  when 

it  first  appears  is  ^°* 1 and  ^°- 2-  Back  view  of  flint  knives.  No.  3.  Side  view  of  No.  2. 

wrought  into  ornaments  for  the  person.8  Knives  of  flint  or 
chert,  stone  hatchets,  hammers,  adzes,  and  nails,  are  common  in 
the  most  ancient  mounds,  which  contain  also  a number  of  clay 
models,  the  centres,  as  it  is  thought,9  of  moulds  into  which 
molten  bronze  was  run,  and  also  occasionally  the  bronze  instru- 
ments themselves,  as  (in  addition  to  spear-heads  and  arrow- 
heads) hammers,  adzes,  hatchets,  knives,  and  Sickles.  It  will 
be  seen  by  the  engraved  representations  that  these  instruments 
are  one  and  all  of  a rude  and  coarse  character.  The  flint  and 
stone  knives,  axes,  and  hammers,  which  abound  in  all  the  true 
Chaldman  mounds,  are  somewhat  more  advanced  indeed  than 


8 Bangles  and  rings.  (See  the  Journal 
of  the  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  p.  415.) 

9 This  view  was  taken  by  Mr.  Yaux 
in  a paper  read  by  him  before  the 
Society  of  Antiquaries,  January,  1860, 
which  he  has  kindly  put  into  my  hands. 


It  may  he  questioned,  perhaps,  whether 
these  clay  models  are  not  rather  the 
representatives  of  real  weapons  and 
implements,  buried  in  their  stead  by 
relatives  too  poor  to  part  with  the 
originals. 


THE  FIRST  MON AECHY. 


Chap.  V 


Chap.  V. 


IMPLEMENTS  AND  WEAPONS. 


97 


those  very  primitive  implements  which  have  been  found  in  the 
drift;  but  they  are  of  a workmanship  at  least  as  unskilled  as 
that  of  the  ordinary  stone  celts  of  Western  and  Northern  Europe, 
which  till  the  discoveries  of  M.  Perthes  were  regarded  as  the 


i 


most  ancient  human  remains  in  our  quarter  of  the  globe.  They 
indicate  some  practical  knowledge  of  the  cleavage  of  silicious 
rocks,  but  they  show  no  power  of  producing  even  such  finish  as 
the  celts  frequently  exhibit.  In  one  case  only  has  a flint  instru- 
ment been  discovered  per- 
fectly regular  in  form,  and 
presenting  a sharp  angular 

, . , , Flint  Implement. 

exactness.  1 he  instrument, 

which  is  figured  here,  is  a sort  of  long  parallelogram,  round  at 

VOL.  i.  H 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V- 


98 

the  back,  ancl  with  a deep  depression  down  its  face.  Its  use  is 
uncertain;  but,  according  to  a reasonable  conjecture,  it  may 
have  been  designed  for  impressing  characters  upon  the  moist 
clay  of  tablets  and  cylinders  — a purpose  for  which  it  is  said  to 
be  excellently  fitted.10 

The  metallurgy  of  the  Chaldaeans,  though  indicative  of  a 
higher  state  of  civilization  and  a greater  knowledge  of  the  useful 
arts  than  their  stone  weapons,  is  still  of  a somewhat  rude  cha- 
racter, and  indicates  a nation  hut  just  emerging  out  of  an  almost 
barbaric  simplicity.  Metal  seems  to  be  scarce,  and  not  many 

kinds  are  found.  There 
is  no  silver,  zinc,  or  pla- 
tinum; but  only  gold, 
copper,  tin,  lead,  and 
iron.  Gold  is  found  in 
beads,  ear-rings,  and 
other  ornaments,11  which 
are  in  some  instances  of 
a fashion  that  is  not  inelegant.1  Copper  occurs  pure,  but 
is  more  often  hardened  by  means  of  an  alloy  of  tin,  whereby 


Leaden  pipe  and  jar. 

it  becomes  bronze,  and  is  rendered  suitable  for  implements  and 
weapons.2  Lead  is  rare,  occurring  only  in  a very  few  specimens, 


10  Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv. 
p.  411. 

1 1 As  fillets  for  the  head.  (Ibid.  p.  273.) 
1 These  ear-rings  are  given  as  Chal- 
dean, because  they  were  found  at  Niffer 
among  remains  thought  to  be  purely 


Chaldsean.  At  the  same  time  it  must 
be  allowed  that  they  very  much  re- 
semble the  Greek  “Cupid  ear-rings,” 
of  which  there  are  so  many  in  the 
British  Museum. 

2 See  above,  pp.  96,  97. 


Chap.  V. 


METALLURGY. 


99 


as  in  one  jar  or  bottle,  and  in  what  seems  to  be  a portion  of  a 
pipe,  brought  by  Mr.  Loftus  from  Mugheir.  Iron,  as  already 
observed,  is  extremely  uncommon ; and,  when  it  occurs,  is  chiefly 
used  for  the  rings  and  bangles  which  seem  to  have  been  among 
the  favourite  adornments  of  the  people.  Bronze  is,  however, 
even  for  these,  the  more  common  material.  It  is  sometimes 
wrought  into  thin  and  elegant  shapes,  tapering  to  a point  at 
either  extremity ; sometimes  the  form  into  which  it  is  cast  is 
coarse  and  massive,  resembling  a solid  bar  twisted  into  a rude 


Bronze  bangles. 


circle.  For  all  ordinary  purposes  of  utility  rit  is  the  common 
metal  used.  A bronze  or  copper  bowl  is  found  in  almost  every 
tomb ; bronze  bolts  remain  in  the  pieces  of  marble  used  for  tes- 
selating  ;3  bronze  rings  sometimes  strengthen  the  cones  used  for 
ornamenting  walls;4  bronze  weapons  and  instruments  are,  as  we 
have  seen,  common ; and  in  the  same  material  have  been  found 
chains,  nails,  toe  and  finger  rings,  armlets,  bracelets,  and  fish- 
hooks. 

No  long  or  detailed  account  can  be  given  of  the  textile 
fabrics  of  the  ancient  Chaldseans ; but  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  this  was  a branch  of  industry  in  which  they  particularly 
excelled.  We  know  that  as  early  as  the  time  of  Joshua  a 
Babylonian  garment  had  been  imported  into  Palestine,  and  was 
of  so  rare  a beauty  as  to  attract  the  covetous  regards  of  Achan, 

3 See  the  small  woodcut  on  p.  81.  I is  given;  and  for  the  use  of  bronze 

4 See  p.  83 ; where  a representation  | rings,  see  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , 
of  this  mode  of  ornamenting  walls  | vol.  xv.  p.  411. 


100 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


in  common  with  certain  large  masses  of  the  precious  metals.5 
The  very  ancient  cylinder  figured  above,6  must  belong  to  a time 
at  least  five  or  six  centuries  earlier  ; upon  it  we  observe  flounced 
and  fringed  garments,  delicately  striped,  and  indicative  appa- 
rently of  an  advanced  state  of  textile  manufacture.  Becent. 
researches  do  not  throw  much  light  on  this  subject.  The  frail 
materials  of  which  human  apparel  is  composed  can  only  under 
peculiar  circumstances  resist  the  destructive  power  of  thirty  or 
forty  centuries ; and  consequently  we  have  but  few  traces  of  the 
actual  fabrics  in  use  among  the  primitive  people.  Pieces  of 
linen  are  said  to  have  been  found  attaching  to  some  of  the 
skeletons  in  the  tombs ; 7 and  the  sun-dried  brick  which  supports 
the  head  is  sometimes  covered  with  the  remains  of  a " tasselled 
cushion  of  tapestry;”8  but  otherwise  we  are  without  direct 
evidence  either  as  to  the  material  in  use,  or  as  to  the  character 
of  the  fabric.  In  later  times  Babylon  was  especially  celebrated 
for  its  robes  and  its  carpets.9  Such  evidence  as  we  have  would 
seem  to  make  it  probable  that  both  manufactures  had  attained 
to  considerable  excellence  in  Chaldsean  times. 

The  only  sciences  in  which  the  early  Chaldseans  can  at 
present  be  proved  to  have  excelled  are  the  cognate  ones  of 
arithmetic  and  astronomy.  On  the  broad  and  monotonous 
plains  of  Lower  Mesopotamia,  where  the  earth  has  little  upon 
it  to  suggest  thought  or  please  by  variety,  the  “ variegated 
heaven,”  ever  changing  with  the  hours  and  with  the  seasons, 
would  early  attract  attention,  while  the  clear  sky,  dry  atmo- 
sphere, and  level  horizon  would  afford  facilities  for  observations, 
so  soon  as  the  idea  of  them  suggested  itself  to  the  minds  of  the 
inhabitants. . The  “ Chaldsean  learning  ” of  a later  age  1 appears 
to  have  been  originated,  in  all  its  branches,  by  the  primitive 
people ; in  whose  language  it  continued  to  be  written  even  in 
Semitic  times. 

We  are  informed  by  Simplicius  that  Callisthenes,  who  accom- 
panied Alexander  to  Babylon,  sent  to  Aristotle  from  that  capital 


5 Josh.  vii.  21.  6 See  p.  94. 

7 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 

xv.  p.  271.  8 Ibid.  1.  s.  c. 


9 Arrian.  Exp.  Alex.  vi.  29 ; Athe- 
nseus,  Eeipnosoph.  v.  p.  197. 

1 Dan.  i.  4. 


Chap.  Y. 


ASTRONOMY 


IOI 


a series  of  astronomical  observations,  which  lie  had  found  pre- 
served there,  extending  back  to  a period  of  1903  years  from 
Alexander’s  conquest  of  the  city.2  Epigenes  related  that  these 
observations  were  recorded  upon  tablets  of  baked  clay,3  which  is 
quite  in  accordance  with  all  that  know  of  the  literary  habits  of 
the  people.  They  must  have  extended,  according  to  Simplicius, 
as  far  back  as  B.c.  2234,  and  would  therefore  seem  to  have  been 
commenced  and  carried  on  for  many  centuries  by  the  primitive 
Chaldsean  people.  We  have  no  means  of  determining  their 
exact  nature  or  value,  as  none  of  them  have  been  preserved  to 
us : no  doubt  they  were  at  first  extremely  simple ; but  we  have 
every  reason  to  conclude  that  they  were  of  a real  and  sub- 
stantial character.  There  is  nothing  fanciful,  or  (so  to  speak) 
astrological,  in  the  early  astronomy  of  the  Babylonians.  Their 
careful  emplacement  of  their  chief  buildings,4  which  were  pro- 
bably used  from  the  earliest  times  for  astronomical  purposes,5 
their  invention  of  different  kinds  of  dials,6  and  their  division  of 
the  day  into  those  hours  which  we  still  use,7  are  all  solid, 
though  not  perhaps  very  brilliant,  achievements.  It  was  only 
in  later  times  that  the  Chaldseans  were  fairly  taxed  with  im- 
posture and  charlatanism ; in  the  early  ages  they  seem  to  have 
really  deserved  the  eulogy  bestowed  on  them  by  Cicero.8 

It  may  have  been  the  astronomical  knowledge  of  the  Chal- 
daeans  which  gave  them  the  confidence  to  adventure  on  im- 
portant voyages.  Scripture  tells  us  of  the  later  people,  that 
“ their  cry  was  in  the  ships ; ” 9 and  the  early  inscriptions  not 
only  make  frequent  mention  of  the  “ ships  of  Ur,”  but  by 


2 This  passage  has  often  been  referred 

to,  but  rarely  quoted.  Simplicius  argues 
that  the  earlier  Greek  writers  on 
astronomy  have  less  value  than  the 
later  ones: — S ta  to  /x^ttco  -ms  inrb  KaA- 
AiaQevovs  e/e  BafivAaivos  Tre/bupOelcras 
TrapaTrif/^creis  atyinecrOcu  els  t)]v  'EA- 
AaSa,  tov  ' hpicrTOTeXovs  tovto  eirio'K'f]- 
xpauros  aarivas  Siriyeirai  o Tlop- 

(pvpios  xiAitoV  iru  v elvai  nai  evvea- 
Koffifov  rpicov,  p.expi  t bv  xp°vov  ’AAe£- 
dvbpov  tov  Ma/eeSo^os  ffoo(op.evas. 

3 Plin.  H.  N.  vii.  56.  “Epigenes 


apud  Babylonios  dccxx  annorum  ob- 
servationes  siderum  coctilibus  laterculis 
inscriptas  docet.” 

4 See  above,  p.  76. 

5 This  is  distinctly  asserted  of  the 
great  temple  of  Belus  by  Diodorus 
(ii.  9,  § 4).  The  careful  emplacement 
of  the  earliest  temples  makes  it  probable 
that  they  were  applied  to  similar  uses. 

6 Herod,  ii.  109.  7 Ibid. 

8 See  the  passage  prefixed  as  a motto 
to  this  chapter  (supra,  p.  70). 

9 Isaiah  xliii.  14. 


102 


THE  FIEST  MONARCHY. 


Chat\  Y 


connecting  these  vessels  with  those  of  Ethiopia 1 seem  to  imply 
that  they  were  navigated  to  considerable  distances.  Unfortu- 
nately we  possess  no  materials  from  which  to  form  any  idea 
either  of  the  make  and  character  of  the  Chaldsean  vessels,  or  of 
the  nature  of  the  trade  in  which  they  were  employed.  We 
may  perhaps  assume  that  at  first  they  were  either  canoes 
hollowed  out  of  a palm-trunk,  or  reed  fabrics  made  water-tight 
by  a coating  of  bitumen.  The  Chaldee  trading  operations  lay, 
no  doubt,  chiefly  in  the  Persian  Gulf ; 2 but  it  is  quite  possible 
that  even  in  very  early  times  they  were  not  confined  to  this 
sheltered  basin.  The  gold,  which  was  so  lavishly  used  in  de- 
coration,3 could  only  have  been  obtained  in  the  necessary  quan- 
tities from  Africa  or  India;  and  it  is' therefore  probable  that 
one,  if  not  both,  of  these  countries  was  visited  by  the  Chaldsean 
traders. 

Astronomical  investigations  could  not  be  conducted  without  a 
fair  proficiency  in  the  science  of  number.  It  would  be  reason- 
able to  conclude,  from  the  admitted  character  of  the  Chaldseans 
as  astronomers,  that  they  were  familiar  with  most  arithmetical 
processes,  even  had  we  no  evidence  upon  the  subject.  Evidence 
however,  to  a certain  extent,  does  exist.  On  a tablet  found  at 
Senkareh,  and  belonging  'probably  to  an  early  period,  a table  of 
squares  is  given,  correctly  calculated  from  one  to  sixty.4  The 
system  of  notation,  which  is  here  used,  is  very  curious.  -Berosus 5 
informs  us  that,  in  their  computations  of  time,  the  Chaldaeans 
employed  an  alternate  sexagesimal  and  decimal  notation, 
reckoning  the  years  by  the  soss,  the  ner , and  the  sar — the  soss 
being  a term  of  60  years,  the  ner  one  of  600,  and  the  sar 
one  of  3600  (or  60  sosses).  It  appears  from  the  Senkareh 
monument,  that  they  occasionally  pursued  the  same  practice 
in  mere  numerical  calculations,  as  will  be  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing extract : — 


1 Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  Journal  of 
the  Asiatic  Soc.  vol.  xxvii.  p.  185. 

2 See  Heeren’s  Asiatic  Nations,  vol.  ii. 

p.  220,  E.T.  3 Supra,  p.  81. 

4 See  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Soc.  vol. 


xv.  p.  218  ; and  compare  Loftus’s  Chal - 
dcea  and  Susiana,  p.  256. 

5 Ap.  Euseb.  Chi-on,  Can.  i.  i.  p.  5, 
ed.  Mai. 


Chap.  V. 


ARITHMETIC. 


103 


Extract  from  Senkareh  Table  of  Squares. 


TTT 

« 

I - 

- 

«< 

« 

T 

TTY 

TT 

m 

- 

«< 

« 

IT 

«< 

< 

TTT 

TTT 

YVV 

VVV 

TTT 

- Spf 

«< 

« 

III 

<« 

< 

VVV 

vvv 

TT 

«< 

TTY 

TTT  ~ 

~ SFt 

<« 

« 

V 

«< 

« 

« 

TTT 

TT 

- 

«< 

« 

TTY 

TT 

<« 

« 

IT 

< 

TTT  _ 
TTT  " 

— T 

«< 

« 

TTT 

TTT 

<<<<<  V 

«<  TTY 
« TTY 

«<  W 

« TT 


TYT 

V 

I 


^=T 
Hf— T 


<« 

« 

«< 

« 


vvv 

T 


TT 


«<  W 

« TTY 


In  Arabic  numerals  this  table 

! may  be 

expressed 

as  follows : — 

Soss. 

Units. 

Soss. 

Units. 

43 

21 

512 

52 

16 

562 

45 

4 

522 

54 

9 

572 

46 

49 

532 

56 

4 

582 

48 

36 

542 

58 

1 

592 

50 

25 

552 

60 

0 

602 

The  calculation  is  in  every  case  correct ; and  the  notation  is 
by  means  of  two  signs — the  simple  wedge  | , and  the  arrow- 
head ( ; the  wedge  representing  the  unit,  the  soss  (60),  and  the 
sar  (3600),  while  the  arrowhead  expresses  the  decades  of  each 
series,  or  the  numbers  10  and  600.6  The  notation  is  cumbrous, 
but  scarcely  more  so  than  that  of  the  Romans.  It  would  be 


6 This  is  the  ner  of  Berosus,  which 
was  a period  of  600  years.  Compare 
with  this  notation  that  of  the  Mexicans 
(Prescott,  History  of  the  Conquest  of 


Mexico , vol.  i.  p.  91),  where,  besides  the 
unit,  the  only  numbers  which  had  dis- 
tinct signs  were  20,  400,  and  8000. 


104 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


awkward  to  use,  from  the  paucity  in  the  number  of  signs,  which 
could  scarcely  fail  to  give  rise  to  confusion, — more  especially  as 
it  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  way  of  expressing  a cypher. 
It  is  not  probable  that  at  any  time  it  was  the  notation  in  ordi- 
nary use.  Numbers  were  commonly  expressed  in  a manner  not 
unlike  the  Roman,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  subjoined  table.  One, 
ten,  a hundred,  and  a thousand,  had  distinct  signs.  Fifty  had 
the  same  sign  as  the  unit — a simple  wedge.  The  other  numbers 
were  composed  from  these  elements. 


1 

I 

11 

<1 

100 

T Y- 

2 

TT 

12 

<YY 

200 

YYY- 

3 

W 

20 

« 

300 

YYY  Y- 

4 

V 

30 

«< 

400 

VI- 

5 

TTY 

YY 

40 

<*< 

500 

YYY 
YY  I 

6 

TTY 

YYY 

50 

1 

600 

YYY 
YYY  1 

7 

yyy 

yyy 

r 

60 

K 

700 

vvv 

Y 1 

8 

yyy 

yyy 

YY 

70 

T« 

800 

xxx 

YY  I 

9 

XXX 

YYY 

80 

Y«< 

900 

xxx  y_ 

10 

< 

90 

r? 

1000 

T<Y- 

Chap.  YI. 


MANNERS  AND  CUSTOMS. 


105 


CHAPTER  VI. 

MANNERS  AND  CUSTOMS. 

Chaldjea,  unlike  Egypt,  has  preserved  to  our  day  but  few 
records  of  the  private  or  domestic  life  of  its  inhabitants.  Beyond 
the  funereal  customs,  to  which  reference  was  made  in  the  last 
chapter,1  we  can  obtain  from  the  monuments  but  a very  scanty 
account  of  their  general  mode  of  life,  manners,  and  usages. 
Some  attempt,  however,  must  be  made  to  throw  together  the 
few  points  of  this  nature  on  which  we  have  obtained  any  light 
from  recent  researches  in  Mesopotamia. 

The  ordinary  dress  of  the  common  people  among  the  Chal- 
drnans  seems  to  have  consisted  of  a single  garment,  a short  tunic, 
tied  round  the  waist,  and  reaching  thence  to  the  knees,  a cos- 
tume very  similar  to  that  worn  by  the  Madan  Arabs  at  the 
present  day.2  To  this  may  sometimes  have  been  added  an  abba , 
or  cloak,  thrown  over  the  shoulders,  and  falling  below  the  tunic, 
about  half-way  down  the  calf  of  the  leg.3  The  material  of  the 
former  we  may  perhaps  presume  to  have  been  linen,  which  best 
suits  the  climate,  and  is  a fabric  found  in  the  ancient  tombs.4 
The  outer  cloak  was  most  likely  of  woollen,  and  served  to 
protect  hunters  and  others  against  the  occasional  inclemency  of 
the  air.  The  feet  were  unprotected  by  either  shoes  or  sandals  ; 
on  the  head  was  worn  a skull-cap,  or  else  a band  of  camel’s 
hair 5 — the  germ  of  the  turban  which  has  now  become  universal 
throughout  the  East. 


1 See  above,  pp.  85-89. 

2 Mr.  Loftus  makes  this  comparison 
( Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  p.  257).  For  re- 

presentations of  the  costume  see  Loftus, 

pp.  257,  258,  260 ; and  Rich  ( Second 

Memoir , pi.  iii.  fig.  13). 


3 See  Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana , 
p.  258. 

4 Asiatic  Journal , vol.  xv.  p.  271. 

5 Loftus,  p.  258.  Compare  the  central 
standing  figure  in  the  cylinder  of  which 
a representation  is  given,  p.  94. 


106  THE  FIEST  MONARCHY.  Chap.  YI. 

The  costume  of  the  richer  classes  was  more  elaborate.  A high 
mitre,  of  a very  peculiar  appearance,6  or  else  a low  cap,  orna- 
mented with  two  curved  horns,  covered  the  bead. 
The  neck  and  arms  were  bare.  The  chief  gar- 
ment was  a long  gown  or  robe,  extending  from 
tbe  neck  to  the  feet,  commonly  either 
or  flounced,  or  both ; and  sometimes  also  adorned 
with  fringe.  This  robe,  which  was  scanty  ac- 
cording to  modern  notions,  appears  not  to  have 
been  fastened  by  any  girdle  or  cincture  round 
the  waist,  but  to  have  been  kept  in  place  by  passing 
over  one  shoulder,  a slit  or  hole  being  made  for 
the  arm  on  one  side  of  the  dress  only.  In  some  cases  the 
upper  part  of  the  dress  seems  to  have  been  detached  from  the 
lower,  and  to  have  formed  a sort  of  jacket, 
which  reached  about  to  the  hips. 

The  beard  was  commonly  worn  straight 
and  long,  not  in  crisp  curls,  as  by  the  As- 
syrians. The  hair  was  also  worn  long,  either 
gathered  together  into  a club  behind  the 
head,  or  depending  in  long  spiral  curls  on 
either  side  the  face  and  down  the  back. 
Ornaments  were  much  affected,  especially 
by  the  women.  Bronze  and  iron  bangles 
and  armlets,  bracelets  of  rings  or  beads, 
ear-rings,  and  rings  for  the  toes,  are  common 
in  the  tombs,  and  few  female  skeletons  are  without  them.  The 
material  of  the  ornaments  is  generally  of  small  value.  Many 
of  the  rings  are  formed  by  grinding  down  a small  kind  of 
shell ; 7 the  others  are  of  bronze  or  iron.  Agate  beads,  however, 
are  not  uncommon,  and  gold  beads  have  been  found  in  a few 
tombs,  as  well  as  some  other  small  ornaments  in  the  same  ma- 
terial. The  men  seem  to  have  carried  generally  an  engraved 
cylinder  in  agate  or  other  hard  stone,  which  was  used  as  a seal 


6 See  the  same  cylinder,  where  two  7 Taylor  in  the  Journal  of  the  Asiatic 
of  the  three  standing  figures  wear  the  Society , yol.  xv.  p.  272. 

mitre  in  question. 


Chap.  VI. 


MANNERS  AND  CUSTOMS. 


107 


or  signet,  and  was  probably  worn  round  tbe  wrist.8  Sometimes 
rings,9  and  even  bracelets,1  formed  also  a part  of  their  adorn- 
ment. The  latter  were  occasionally  in  gold — they  consisted  of 
bands  or  fillets  of  the  pure  beaten  metal,  and  w’ere  as  much  as 
an  inch  in  breadth. 

The  food  of  the  early  Chaldseans  consisted  probably  of  the 
various  esculents  which  have  already  been  mentioned  as  products 
of  the  territory.2  The  chief  support,  however,  of  the  mass  of 
the  population  was,  beyond  a doubt,  the  dates,  which  still  form 
the  main  sustenance  of  those  wTho  inhabit  the  country.  It  is 
clear  that  in  Babylonia,  as  in  Scythia,3  the  practice  existed  of 
burying  with  a man  a quantity  of  the  food  to  which  he  had  been 
accustomed  during  life.  In  the  Chaldsean  sepulchres  a number 
of  dishes  are  always  ranged  round  the  skeleton,  containing  the 
viaticum  of  the  deceased  person,  and  in  these  dishes  are  almost 
invariably  found  a number  of  date-stones.  They  are  most  com- 
monly unaccompanied  by  any  traces  of  other  kinds  of  food ; 
occasionally,  however,  besides  date-stones,  the  bones  of  fish  and 
of  chickens  have  been  discovered,  from  which  we  may  conclude 
that  those  animals  were  eaten,  at  any  rate  by  the  upper  classes. 
Herodotus4  tells  us  that  in  his  day  three  tribes  of  Babylonians 
subsisted  on  fish  alone ; and  the  present  inhabitants  of  Lower 
Mesopotamia  make  it  a principal  article  of  their  diet.5  The 
rivers  and  the  marshes  produce  it  in  great  abundance,  while  the 
sea  is  also  at  hand,  if  the  fresh-water  supply  should  fail.  Carp 
and  barbel  are  the  principal  fresh-water  sorts,  and  of  these  the 
former  grows  to  a very  great  size  in  the  Euphrates.  An  early 
tablet,  now  in  the  British  Museum,  represents  a man  carrying  a 
large  fish  by  the  head,  which  may  be  a carp,  though  the  species 
can  scarcely  be  identified.  There  is  evidence  that  the  wild-boar 
was  also  eaten  by  the  primitive  people ; for  Mr.  Loftus  found  a 
jaw  of  this  animal,  with  the  tusk  still  remaining,  lying  in  a 


8 At  least  this  is  the  position  which 
the  signet  cylinder  always  occupies  in 
the  tombs.  ( Asiatic  Journal , vol.  xv. 

* p.  271.) 

9 Ibid.  p.  415. 

1 See  the  sitting  figure  in  the  cylinder, 


p.  94 ; and  compare  As.  Journ.  vol.  xv. 
p.  273.  2 See  above,  pp.  33-36. 

3 Herod,  iv.  71  (Author’s  Translation, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  61-63).  4 Ibid.  i.  200. 

5 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , ch. 
xxiv.  p.  567. 


io8 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


shallow  clay  dish  in  one  of  the  tombs.6  Perhaps  we  may  be 
justified  in  concluding,  from  the  comparative  rarity  of  any 
remains  of  animal  food  in  the  early  sepulchres,  that  the  primi- 
tive Chaldseans  subsisted  chiefly  on  vegetable  productions.  The 
variety  and  excellence  of  such  esculents  are  prominently  put 
forward  by  Berosus  in  his  account  of  the  original  condition  of 
the  country ; 7 and  they  still  form  the  principal  support  of  those 
who  now  inhabit  it. 

We  are  told  that  Nimrod  was  e£  a mighty  hunter  before  the 
Lord ; ” 8 and  it  is  evident,  from  the  account  already  given  of 
the  animals  indigenous  in  Lower  Mesopotamia,9  that  there  was 
abundant  room  for  the  display  of  a sportsman’s  skill  and  daring 
when  men  first  settled  in  that  region.  The  Senkareh  tablets 
show  the  boldness  and  voracity  of  the  Chaldsean  lion,  which  not 
only  levied  contributions  on  the  settlers’  cattle,1  but  occasionally 
ventured  to  attack  man  himself.  We  have  not  as  yet  any 
hunting  scenes  belonging  to  these  early  times ; but  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  bow  was  the  chief  weapon  used  against 
the  king  of  beasts,  whose  assailants  commonly  prefer  remaining 
at  a respectful  distance  from  him.2  The  wild-boar  may  have 
been  hunted  in  the  same  way,  or  he  may  have  been  attacked 
with  the  spear — a weapon  equally  well  known  with  the  bow  to 
the  early  settlers.3  Pish  were  certainly  taken  with  the  hook ; 
for  fish-hooks  have  been  found  in  the  tombs;4  but  probably  they 
were  also  captured  in  nets,  which  are  among  the  earliest  of 
human  inventions.5 

A considerable  portion  of  the  primitive  population  must  have 
been  engaged  in  maritime  pursuits.  In  the  earliest  inscriptions 
we  find  constant  mention  of  the  “ ships  of  Ur,”  which  appear  to 
have  traded  with  Ethiopia — a country  whence  may  have  been 
derived  the  gold,  which — as  has  been  already  shown — was  so 


6 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 
p.  272,  note  1. 

7 See  the  Fragmenta  Hist.  Grcec.  vol. 

ii.  p.  496  ; Fr.  1,  § 2.  8 Gen.  x.  9. 

9 See  above,  ch.  ii.  p.  39. 

1 See  Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana , 
p.  258.  2 Ibid.  ch.  xx.  p.  259. 

3  For  representations  of  spearheads, 


vide  supra,  p.  96. 

4 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 
p.  272,  note  2. 

5 See  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , 
1st  Series,  vol.  ii.  p.  21 ; vol.  iii.  p.  55 ; 
and  compare  Sophocl.  Antig.  347,  where 
the  invention  of  nets  is  united  with 
that  of.  ships,  agriculture,  and  language. 


Chap.  VI. 


MANNERS  AND  CUSTOMS. 


IO9 


largely  used  by  the  Chaldaeans  in  ornamentation.6  It  would  be 
interesting  could  we  regard  it  as  proved  that  they  traded  also 
with  the  Indian  peninsula ; but  the  “ rough  logs  of  wood,  appa- 
rently teak”  which  Mr.  Taylor  discovered  in  the  great  temple  at 
Mugheir,7  belong  more  probably  to  the  time  of  its  repair  by 
JSTabonidus  than  to  that  of  its  original  construction  by  a Chaldsean 
monarch.  The  Sea-god  was  one  of  the  chief  objects  of  venera- 
tion at  Ur  and  elsewhere;  and  Berosus  appears  to  have  preserved 
an  authentic  tradition,  where  he  makes  the  primitive  people  of 
the  country  derive  their  arts  and  civilization  from  “the  Bed 
Sea.”8  Even  if  their  commercial  dealings  did  not  bring  them 
into  contact  with  any  more  advanced  people,  they  must  have 
increased  the  intelligence,  as  well  as  the  material  resources,  of 
those  employed  in  them,  and  so  have  advanced  their  civilization. 

Such  are  the  few  conclusions  concerning  the  manners  of  the 
Chaldseans  which  alone  we  seem  to  have  any  right  to  form  with 
our  present  means  of  information. 


6 See  above,  p.  81. 

7 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 
xv.  p.  264. 

8 Fragm.  Hist.  Grcec.  1.  s.  c.  The 
“Red  Sea”  of  Berosus,  like  that  of 
Herodotus,  is  not  our  Red  Sea,  but  the 


sea  which  washes  the  south  of  Asia, 
including  both  the  Indian  Ocean  and 
the  Persian  Gulf.  (See  Herod,  i.  1 ; 
Author’s  Translation,  vol.  i.  p.  153, 
note  2.) 


1 10 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
RELIGION. 


’A7 roreXecrai  $e  tov  B rj\ov  ical  aarpa , Kal  rjXiov,  Kal  aeXrjvrjv,  Kal  tovs  nevre 

TrXavrjras. — Beros.  ap.  Syncell.  p.  53. 

The  religion  of  the  Chaldasans,  from  the  very  earliest  times  to 
which  the  monuments  carry  ns  back,  was,  in  its  outward  aspect,  a 
polytheism  of  a very  elaborate  character.  It  is  quite  possible  that 
there  may  have  been  esoteric  explanations,  known  to  the  priests 
and  the  more  learned,  which,  resolving  the  personages  of  the 
Pantheon  into  the  powers  of  nature,  reconciled  the  apparent 
multiplicity  of  gods  with  monotheism,  or  even  with  atheism.1 
So  far,  however,  as  outward  appearances  were  concerned,  the 
worship  was  grossly  polytheistic.  Various  deities,  whom  it  was 
not  considered  at  all  necessary  to  trace  to  a single  stock,  divided 
the  allegiance  of  the  people,  and  even  of  the  kings,  who  regarded 
with  equal  respect,  and  glorified  with  equally  exalted  epithets, 
some  fifteen  or  sixteen  personages.  Next  to  these  principal  gods 
were  a far  more  numerous  assemblage  of  inferior  or  secondary 
divinities,  less  often  mentioned,  and  regarded  as  less  worthy  of 
honour,  but  still  recognised  generally  through  the  country. 
Finally,  the  Pantheon  contained  a host  of  mere  local  gods  or 
genii,  every  town  and  almost  every  village  in  Babylonia  being 
under  the  protection  of  its  own  particular  divinity. 

It  will  be  impossible  to  give  a complete  account  of  this  vast 
and  complicated  system.  The  subject  is  still  but  partially 


1 It  appears  from  Eusebius  ( Chron . 
Can.  pars  i.  c.  ii.)  and  Syncellus  (Chrono- 
graph. vol.  i.  pp.  50-53)  that  Berosus  at 
any  rate  gave  this  turn  to  the  Baby- 
lonian mythology.  What  is  commonly 
reported  of  Pythagoras,  Democritus, 
and  others,  who  are  said  to  have  drawn 


their  philosophies  from  Chaldaean  sources, 
would  seem  to  show  that  there  was  really 
such  an  esoteric  doctrine  as  is  suggested 
in  the  text.  We  cannot  tell,  however, 
which  more  nearly  represented  it — the 
monotheism  of  the  Samian,  or  the  atheism 
of  the  Abderite  philosopher. 


Chap.  VII. 


RELIGION. 


Ill 


worked  out  by  cuneiform  scholars ; the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
understanding  it  are  great;  and  in  many  portions  to  which 
special  attention  has  been  paid  it  is  strangely  perplexing  and 
bewildering.2  All  that  will  be  attempted  in  the  present  place 
is  to  convey  an  idea  of  the  general  character  of  the  Chaldsean 
religion,  and  to  give  some  information  with  regard  to  the 
principal  deities. 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  noticed  that  the  religion  was  to 
a certain  extent  astral.  The  heaven  itself,  the  sun,  the  moon, 
and  the  five  planets,  have  each  their  representative  in  the 
Chaldsean  Pantheon  among  the  chief  objects  of  worship.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  astral  element  is  not 
universal,  but  partial ; and  that,  even  where  it  has  place,  it  is 
but  one  aspect  of  the  mythology,  not  by  any  means  its  full  and 
complete  exposition.  The  Chaldsean  religion  even  here  is  far 
from  being  mere  Sabseanism — the  simple  worship  of  the  “ host 
of  heaven.”  The  aether,  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  still  more  the 
five  planetary  gods,  are  something  above  and  beyond  those  parts 
of  nature.  Like  the  classical  Apollo  and  Diana,  Mars  and 
Yenus,  they  are  real  persons,  with  a life  and  a history,  a power 
and  an  influence,  which  no  ingenuity  can  translate  into  a meta- 
phorical representation  of  phenomena  attaching  to  the  air  and 
to  the  heavenly  bodies.  It  is  doubtful,  indeed,  whether  the 
gods  of  this  class  are  really  of  astronomical  origin,  and  not 
rather  primitive  deities,  whose  characters  and  attributes  were, 
to  a great  extent,  fixed  and  settled  before  the  notion  arose  of 
connecting  them  with  certain  parts  of  nature.  Occasionally 
they  seem  to  represent  heroes  rather  than  celestial  bodies ; and 
they  have  all  attributes  quite  distinct  from  their  physical  or 
astronomical  character. 

Secondly,  the  striking  resemblance  of  the  Chaldaean  system 
to  that  of  the  Classical  Mythology  seems  worthy  of  particular 
attention.  This  resemblance  is  too  general,  and  too  close  in 
some  respects,  to  allow  of  the  supposition  that  mere  accident 
has  produced  the  coincidence.  In  the  Pantheons  of  Greece  and 


2 See  the  Essay  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  author’s  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  585  ; 
from  which  most  of  the  views  contained  in  this  chapter  are  taken. ^ 


1 1 2 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Rome,  and  in  that  of  Chaldsea,  the  same  general  grouping  is  to 
be  recognised;  the  same  genealogical  succession  is  not  unfre- 
quently  to  be  traced ; and  in  some  cases  even  the  familiar  names 
and  titles  of  classical  divinities  admit  of  the  most  curious  illus- 
tration and  explanation  from  Chaldsean  sources.  We  can 
scarcely  doubt  but  that,  in  some  way  or  other,  there  was  a com- 
munication of  beliefs — a passage  in  very  early  times,  from  the 
shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  lands  washed  by  the  Mediter- 
ranean, of  mythological  notions  and  ideas.  It  is  a probable 
conjecture 3 that  “ among  the  primitive  tribes  who  dwelt  on  the 
Tigris  and  Euphrates,  when  the  cuneiform  alphabet  was  invented 
and  when  such  writing  was  first  applied  to  the  purposes  of 
religion,  a Scythic  or  Scytho-Arian  race  existed,  who  subse- 
quently migrated  to  Europe,  and  brought  with  them  those 
mythical  traditions  which,  as  objects  of  popular  belief,  had  been 
mixed  up  in  the  nascent  literature  of  their  native  country,” 
and  that  these  traditions  were  passed  on  to  the  classical  nations, 
who  were  in  part  descended  from  this  Scythic  or  Scytho-Arian 
people.4 

The  grouping  of  the  principal  Chaldaean  deities  is  as  follows. 
At  the  head  of  the  Pantheon  stands  a god,  II  or  Ra,  of  whom 
but  little  is  known.  Next  to  him  is  a Triad,  Ana,  Bil,  or  Belus, 
and  Hea  or  Hoa,  who  correspond  closely  to  the  classical  Pluto, 
Jupiter,  and  Neptune.  Each  of  these  is  .accompanied  by  a 
female  principle  or  wife, — Ana  by  Anat,  Bil  (or  Bel)  by  Mulita 
or  Beltis,  and  Hea  or  Hoa  by  Havhina.  Then  follows  a further 
Triad,  consisting  of  Bin  or  Hurhi,  the  Moon-god  ; Ban  or  Bansi, 
the  Sun ; and  Vul,b  the  god  of  the  atmosphere.  The  members 
of  this  Triad  are  again  accompanied  by  female  powers  or  wives, 
— Vul  by  a goddess  called  Bhala  or  Tala,  Ban  (the  Sun)  by  Gula 


3 Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  above- 
quoted  Essay,  p.  586. 

4 It  is  now  generally  allowed  that 
a Scythic  or  Turanian  race  was  the  first 
to  people  Europe.  Of  this  race  we  have 
still  remnants  in  the  Basques,  Fins, 
Laps,  and  Esths  or  Esthonians  upon  the 
Baltic.  The  Etruscans  in  Italy  are 
perhaps  of  the  same  stock.  In  Greece 
they  probably  blended  with  the  Pelasgi 


(Arians),  as  they  did  also  with  the 
Celts  in  several  countries.  The  “ lake- 
dwellings  ” of  Europe  may  be  with 
great  probability  assigned  to  them  ; and 
the  flint-weapons  in  the  drift  are  per- 
haps traces  of  their  burial-grounds. 

5  This  name  is  very  doubtful.  Mr. 
Fox  Talbot  renders  it  by  Yem ; M.  Op- 
pert  by  Ao  or  Hu;  Dr.  Hincks  by  lo 
or  Ioa  ; M.  Lenormant  by  Bin. 


Chap.  VII.  GROUPING  OF  THE  CHIEF  DEITIES.  113 

or  Anunit,  and  Hurlci  (the  Moon)  by  a goddess  whose  name  is 
wholly  uncertain,  but  whose  common  title  is  “ the  great  lady.” 
Such  are  the  gods  at  the  head  of  the  Pantheon.  Next  in  order 
to  them  we  find  a group  of  five  minor  deities,  the  representa- 
tives of  the  five  planets, — Nin  or  Ninip  (Saturn),  Merodach 
(Jupiter),  Nergal  (Mars),  Ishtar  (Venus),  and  Nebo  (Mercury). 
These  together  constitute  what  we  have  called  the  principal 
gods ; after  them  are  to  be  placed  the  numerous  divinities  of  the 
second  and  third  order. 

These  principal  gods  do  not  appear  to  have  been  connected, 
like  the  Egyptian  and  the  classical  divinities,6  into  a single 
genealogical  scheme : yet  still  a certain  amount  of  relationship 
was  considered  to  exist  among  them.  Ana  and  Bel,  for  instance, 
were  brothers,  the  sons  of  II  or  Ka ; Vul  was  son  of  Ana ; 
Hurki,  the  Moon-god,  of  Bel;  Nebo  and  Merodach  were  sons  of 
Hea  or  Hoa.  Many  deities,  however,  are  without  parentage, 
as  not  only  II  or  Ba,  but  Hea,  San  (the  Sun),  Ishtar,  and  Nergal. 
Sometimes  the  relationship  alleged  is  confused,  and  even  con- 
tradictory, as  in  the  case  of  Nin  or  Ninip,  who  is  at  one  time 
the  son,  at  another  the  father  of  Bel,  and  who  is  at  once  the  son 
and  the  husband  of  Beltis.  It  is  evident  that  the  genealogical 
aspect  is  not  that  upon  which  much  stress  is  intended  to  be  laid, 
or  which  is  looked  upon  as  having  much  reality.  The  great 
gods  are  viewed  habitually  rather  as  a hierarchy  of  co-equal 
powers,  than  as  united  by  ties  implying  on  the  one  hand  pre- 
eminence and  on  the  other  subordination. 

We  may  now  consider  briefly  the  characters  and  attributes  of 
the  several  deities,  so  far  as  they  can  be  made  out,  either  from 
the  native  records,  or  from  classical  tradition.  And  first, 
concerning  the  god  who  stands  in  some  sense  at  the  head  of 
the  Chaldsean  Pantheon, 


0 These  schemes  themselves  were 
probably  not  genealogical  at  first.  In 
their  genealogical  shape  they  were  an 
arrangement  given  after  a while  to 
separate  and  independent  deities  recog- 


nised in  different  places  by  distinct 
communities,  or  even  by  distinct  races. 
(See  Bunsen’s  Egypt,  vol.  iv.  p.  66,  B. 
Engl.  Transl.) 


VOL.  I. 


I 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


1 14 


IL  or  RA. 


The  form  Ba  represents  probably  the  native  Chaldsean 
name  of  this  deity,  while  11  is  the  Semitic  equivalent.  17,  of 
course,  is  but  a variant  of  El  (^k),  the  root  of  the  well-known 
Biblical  Elohim  (d\!"6k)  as  well  as  of  the  Arabic  Allah.  It  is 
this  name  which  Diodorus  represents  under  the  form  of  Elus 
( HAo?),7  and  Sanchoniathon,  or  rather  Philo-Byblius,  under 
that  of  Elus  (*HXo?)  or  Bus  (HAo?).8  The  meaning  of  the 
word  is  simply  “God,”  or  perhaps  “the  god”  emphatically. 
Ba,  the  Cushite  equivalent,  must  be  considered  to  have  had 
the  same  force  originally,  though  in  Egypt  it  received  a 
special  application  to  the  sun,  and  became  the  proper  name 
of  that  particular  deity.  The  word  is  lost  in  the  modem 
Ethiopic.  It  formed  an  element  in  the  native  name  of  Babylon, 
which  was  Ka-ra,  the  Cushite  equivalent  of  the  Semitic  Bab-il, 
an  expression  signifying  “ the  gate  of  God.” 

Ba  is  a god  with  few  peculiar  attributes.  He  is  a sort  of 
fount  and  origin  of  deity,  too  remote  from  man  to  be  much 
worshipped  or  to  excite  any  warm  interest.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence of  his  having  had  any  temple  in  Chaldsea  during  the 
early  times.  A belief  in  his  existence  is  implied  rather  than 
expressed  in  inscriptions  of  the  primitive  kings,  where  the 
Moon-god  is  said  to  be  “ brother’s  son  of  Ana,  and  eldest  son  of 
Bil,  or  Belus.”  We  gather  from  this,  that  Bel  and  Ana  were 
considered  to  have  a common  father  ; and  later  documents  suffi- 
ciently indicate  that  that  common  father  was  II  or  Ka.  We 
must  conclude  from  the  name  Babil,  that  Babylon  was  origin- 
ally under  his  protection,  though  the  god  specially  worshipped 
in  the  great  temple  there  seems  to  have  been  in  early  times 
Bel,  and  in  later  times  Merodach.  The  identification  of  the 
Chaldsean  II  or  Ka  with  Saturn,  which  Diodorus  makes,9  and 
which  may  seem  to  derive  some  confirmation  from  Philo- 


T See  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  30,  § 3,  where, 
however,  there  is  a corrupt  reading,  the 
word^HAou  being  most  absurdly  replaced 
by  'HAiov. 

8 See  his  fragments  in  Muller’s  Fragm. 


Hist.  Grose,  vol.  iii.  pp.  567  and  571 ; 
Fr.  2,  § 14,  and  Fr.  5. 

9 Loc.  sup.  cit.  TSlcj  rbu  vnb  toov 
'EAA r)vwv  Kpovov  dvop.a£6/j.ei/oi/  naXovaiv 
’'HA  ov. 


Chap.  VII. 


CHIEF  GODS  - IL  AND  ANA. 


115 

Byblius,1  is  certainly  incorrect,  so  far  as  the  planet  Saturn, 
which  Diodorus  especially  mentions,  is  concerned  ; but  it  may 
be  regarded  as  having  a basis  of  truth,  inasmuch  as  Saturn  was 
in  one  sense  the  chief  of  the  gods,  and  was  the  father  of  Jupiter 
and  Pluto,  as  Ra  was  of  Bil  and  Ana. 


ANA. 


Ana,'  like  II  and  Ba,  is  thought  to  have  been  a word  ori- 
ginally signifying  “ God,”  in  the  highest  sense.  The  root  occurs 
probably  in  the  Annedotus  and  Oannes  of  Berosus,2  as  well  as 
in  Philo-Byblius’s  Anobret.3  In  its  origin  it  is  probably 
Cushite ; but  it  was  adopted  by  the  Assyrians,  who  inflected 
the  word  (which  was  indeclinable  in  the  Chaldsean  tongue), 
making  the  nominative  Ann,  the  genitive  Ani.  and  the  accusa- 
tive Ana. 

Ana  is  the  head  of  the  first  Triad,  which  follows  immediately 
after  the  obscure  god  Ra.  His  position  is  well  marked  by 
Damascius,4  who  gives  the  three  godsj  Anus,  Illinus,  and 
Ails,  as  next  in  succession  to  the  primeval  pair,  Assorus  and 
Missara.  He  corresponds  in  many  respects  to  the  classical 
Hades  or  Pluto,  who,  like  him,  heads  the  triad  to  which  he 
belongs.5  His  epithets  are  chiefly  such  as  mark  priority  and 
antiquity.  He  is  called  “the  old  Ana,”  “the  original  chief,” 
perhaps  in  one  place  “the  father  of  the  gods,”  and  also  “the 
Lord  of  spirits  and  demons.”  Again,  he  bears  a number  of 
titles  which  serve  to  connect  him  with  the  infernal  regions. 
He  is  “the  king  of  the  lower  world,”  the  “Lord  of  darkness” 
or  “ death,”  “ the  ruler  of  the  far-off  city,”  and  the  like.  The 
chief  seat  of  his  worship  is  Hurulc  or  Erech — the  modern  Warka 
— which  becomes  the  favourite  Chaldsean  burying  city,  as  being 
under  his  protection.  There  are  some  grounds  for  thinking 


^ 1 K p6vos  ro'ivvv,  lov  x>i  ^oiVi/ces^HAoz/ 
'irpoo’a'yopevovo'L,  fiaaiXedoov  rrjs  %copas, 
Kal  varepov  gera  rrjv  rod  fi'iov  re- 
A evrrjv  els  rbv  rod  K povov  acrrepa 
Kadiepudels , /c.t.A.  This,  however,  pro- 
fesses to  be  Phoenician  and  not  Baby- 
lonian mythology. 

2  Fr.  1,  § 3 and  Fr.  6.  Annedotus 


(’A vi/TjdwTos)  is  (perhaps)  “given  by 
Ana,”  or  “ given  by  God.”  Oannes  is 
probably  Hoa-ana  ; or  “ the  god  Hoa.” 

3 Fr.  5.  Anobret  (’A vwfiper')  signifies 
“ beloved  by  Ana.” 

4 Damasc.  De  Princip.  125. 

5 Hesiod,  Theogon.  455-457  ; Apollod. 
Bibliothec.  i.  1,  §§  5,  6. 

i 2 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


1 1 6 

that  one  of  his  names  was  Dis.6  If  this  was  indeed  so,  it 
would  seem  to  follow,  almost  beyond  a doubt,  that  Dis,  the 
lord  of  Orcus  in  Roman  mythology,  must  have  been  a re- 
miniscence brought  from  the  East — a lingering  recollection  of 
Dis  or  Ana,  patron  god  of  Erech  (’O pe%  of  the  LXX),  the 
great  city  of  the  dead,  the  necropolis  of  Lower  Babylonia. 
Further,  curiously  enough,  we  have,  in  connexion  with  this  god, 
an  illustration  of  the  classical  confusion  between  Pluto  and 
Plutus  ; for  Ana  is  “ the  layer-up  of  treasures  ” — the  “ lord  of 
the  earth  ” and  of  the  “ mountains,”  whence  the  precious  metals 
are  derived. 

The  worship  of  Ana  by  the  kings  of  the  Chaldsean  series  is 
certain.  Not  only  did  Skamas-vul,  the  son  of  Ismi-dagon,  raise 
a temple  to  the  honour  of  Ana  and  his  son  Yul  at  Kileh- 
Shergat  (or  Asshur)  about  B.c.  1830 — ’whence  that  city  appears 
in  later  times  to  have  borne  the  name  of  Telane,7  or  “the 
mound  of  Ana  ” — but  Urukh  himself  mentions  him  as  a god  in 
an  inscription  quoted  above ; 8 and  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  from  at  least  as  early  a date  he  was  recognised  as  the  pre- 
siding deity  at  Erech  or  Warka.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact, 
that  though  the  worship  of  Beltis  superseded  that  of  Ana  in  the 
great  temple  at  that  place  from  a very  remote  epoch,  yet  the 
temple  itself  always  retained  the  title  of  Bit- Ana  (or  Betk-Ana), 
“ the  house  of  Ana ; ” and  Beltis  herself  was  known  commonly 
as  “ the  lady  of  Bit-Ana”  from  the  previous  dedication  to  this 
god  of  the  shrine  in  question.  Ana  must  also  have  been  wor- 
shipped tolerably  early  at  Nipur  ( Niffer ),  or  that  city  could 
scarcely  have  acquired,  by  the  time  of  Moses,9  the  appellation 
of  Calneh  ( XaXdvrj  in  the  Septuagint  translation),  which  is 
clearly  Kal-Ana,  “ the  fort  of  Ana.” 


6 A single  wedge  | , which  according 

to  Chaldsean  numeration  represents  the 
number  60  (supra,  p.  103),  is  emblematic 
of  the  god  Ana  on  the  notation  tablets ; 
and,  as  would  be  expected  from  this 
fact,  Ana  is  one  of  the  phonetic  powers 

of  y . Another  of  its  powers  is  Dis ; 

and  hence  the  conclusion  is  drawn  that 


Dis  was  probably  another  name  of  Ana. 
(See  the  Essay  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in 
the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  592.) 

7 Cf.  Steph.  Byz.  ad  voc.  TeA avr). 
TeAc^,  ttoAls  apxatOT“T77  2 vpias  (i.e. 
’’Aacrvptas)  V o,Kei  NiVos  irpb  tt}s  NtVou 
KTiae cos.  8 Supra,  page  67. 

9 Gen.  x.  10.  The  identification  of 
Niffer  with  Calneh  rests  on  the  authority 
of  the  Talmud  (see  above,  p.  15). 


Chap.  YII. 


AN  AT  A — BIL  OB  ENU. 


117 


Ana  was  supposed  to  liave  a wife,  Anata,  of  whom  a few 
words  will  be  said  below.  She  bore  her  husband  a numerous 
progeny.  One  tablet  shows  a * list  of  nine  of  their  children, 
among  which,  however,  no  name  occurs  of  any  celebrity.  But 
there  are  two  sons  of  Ana  mentioned  elsewhere,  who  seem  en- 
titled to  notice.  One  is  the  god  of  the  atmosphere,  Vul(?),  of 
whom  a full  account  will  be  hereafter  given.1  The  other  bears 
the  name  of  Martu,  and  may  be  identified  with  the  Brathy 
(B paOv)  of  Sanchoniathon.2  He  represents  “Darkness”  or 
“the  West,”  corresponding  to  the  Erebus  of  the  Greeks. 

ANATA. 

Anat  or  Anata  has  no  peculiar  characteristics.  As  her  name 
is  nothing  but  the  feminine  form  of  the  masculine  Ana,  so  she 
herself  is  a mere  reflection  of  her  husband.  All  his  epithets  are 
applied  to  her,  with  a simple  difference  of  gender.  She  has 
really  no  personality  separate  from  his,  resembling  Amente  in 
Egyptian  mythology,  who  is  a mere  feminine  Ammon.3  She  is 
rarely,  if  ever,  mentioned  in  the  historical  and  geographical  in- 
scriptions. 

BIL  or  ENU. 

Bil  or  Enu  is  the  second  god  of  the  first  Triad.  He  is,  pro- 
bably, the  Illinus  ( Il-Enu  or  “ God  Enu  ”)  of  Damascius.4  His 
name,  which  seems  to  mean  merely  “ lord,” 5 is  usually  followed 
by  a qualificative  adjunct,  possessing  great  interest.  It  is  pro- 
posed to  read  this  term  as  Nipru,  or  in  the  feminine  Nijorut,  a 
word  which  cannot  fail  to  recall  the  Scriptural  Nimrod,  who  is 
in  the  Septuagint  Nebroth  (N efipcoO).  The  term  nijpru  seems  to 
be  formed  from  the  root  najoar,  which  is  in  Syriac  to  “ pursue,’’ 
to  “ make  to  flee,”  and  which  has  in  Assyrian  nearly  the  same 
meaning.  Thus  Bil-Nipru  would  be  aptly  translated  as  “ the 
Hunter  Lord,”  or  “the  god  presiding  over  the  chase,”  while, 


1 Infra,  pp.  129-131. 

2 Fragm.  Hist.  Grr.  vol.  iii.  p.  566. 

3 Bunsen’s  Egypt , vol.  i.  p.  378,  E.  T. ; 

Wilkinson  in  the  author’s  Herodotus , 

vol.  ii.  p.  295.  4 De  Princip.  125. 


5 Bil  or  Bilu  is  “lord”  in  the  As- 
syrian and  the  Semitic  Babylonian : 
Enu  is  the  corresponding  Cushite  or 
Hamitic  term. 


1 1 8 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


at  the  same  time,  it  might  combine  the  meaning  of  “ the  con- 
quering Lord  ” or  “ the  Great  Conqueror.” 

On  these  grounds  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  we  have,  in 
this  instance,  an  admixture  of  hero-worship  in  the  Chaldsean 
religion.  Bil-Nipru  is  probably  the  Biblical  Nimrod,  the  ori- 
ginal founder  of  the  monarchy,  the  “ mighty  hunter  ” and  con- 
queror. At  the  same  time,  however,  that  he  is  this  hero  deified, 
be  represents  also,  as  the  second  God  of  the  first  Triad,  the 
classical  Jupiter.  He  is  “the  supreme,”  “the  father  of  the 
gods,”  “ the  procreator,”  “ the  Lord  ” jpar  excellence,  “ the  king 
of  all  the  spirits,”  “ the  lord  of  the  world,”  and  again,  “ the  lord 
of  all  the  countries.”  There  is  some  question  whether  he  is 
altogether  to  be  identified  with  the  Belus  of  the  Greek  writers, 
who  in  certain  respects  rather  corresponds  to  Merodach.6  When 
Belus,  however,  is  called  the  first  king,7  the  founder  of  the 
empire,  or  the  builder  of  Babylon,8  it  seems  necessary  to  under- 
stand Bil-Nipru  or  Bel-Nimrod.  Nimrod,  we  know,  built 
Babylon ; 9 and  Babylon  was  called  in  Assyrian  times  “ the  city 
of  Bil-Nipru,”  while  its  famous  defences — the  outer  and  the 
inner  wall  — were  known,  even  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  by 
the  name  of  the  same  god.1  Nimrod,  again,  was  certainly  the 
founder  of  the  kingdom ; 2 and,  therefore,  if  Bil-Nipru  is  his 
representative,  he  would  be  Belus  under  that  point  of  view. 

The  chief  seat  of  Bel-Nimrod’s  worship  was  undoubtedly 
Nipur  (Niffer)  or  Calneh.  Not  only  was  this  city  designated  by 
the  very  same  name  as  the  god,  and  specially  dedicated  to  him 
and  to  his  wife  Beltis,  but  Bel-Nimrod  is  called  “Lord  of 
Nipra,”  and  his  wife  “Lady  of  Nipra,”  in  evident  allusion  to 
this  city  or  the  tract  wherein  it  was*  placed.  Various  tradi- 
tions, as  will  be  hereafter  shown,3  connect  Nimrod  with  Niffer, 


6 The  Jupiter  Belus  worshipped  in 
the  great  temple  at  Babylon  seems 
certainly  to  have  been  Merodach,  who 
likewise  represents  the  planet  Jupiter. 
(See  below,  p.  134.) 

7 As  by  Abydenus  (cf.  Euseb.  Chron. 

Can.  i.  12,  p.  36,  and  Mos.  Choren.  i.  4, 

p.  13),  by  Stephen  (ad.  voc.  BaQvA cats'), 
and,  perhaps  we  may  say,  by  Hero- 


dotus (i.  7).  Compare  also  Thallus  (Fr.  2) 
and  Mos.  Choren.  (i.  6,  and  9),  who 
absolutely  identifies  Belus  with  Nimrod. 

8  Abyden.  Fr.  8.  9 Gen.  x.  10. 

1 These  walls  were  known  respectively 
as  the  Ingur-Bilu-Nipru , and  the  Nimiti- 
Bilu-Nipru.  (Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  au- 
thor’s Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  596,  and  vol.  ii.  p. 
586.)  2 Gen.  x.  10.  3 Infra,  pp.  153, 154. 


Chap.  VII,  ' 


BELTIS. 


II9 

which  may  fairly  he  regarded  as  his  principal  capital.  Here 
then  he  would  be  naturally  first  worshipped  upon  his  decease; 
and  here  seems  to  have  been  situated  his  famous  temple  called 
Kh arris-Nijpra,  so  noted  for  its  wealth,  splendour,  and  anti- 
quity, which  was  an  object  of  intense  veneration  to  the 
Assyrian  kings.  Besides  this  celebrated  shrine,  he  does  not 
appear  to  have  possessed  many  others.  He  is  sometimes  said  to 
have  had  four  “ arks  or  “ tabernacles ; ” but  the  only  places, 
besides  Niffer,  where  we  know  that  he  had  buildings  dedicated 
to  him,  are  Calah  (Nimrud)  and  Dur-Kurri-galzu  (Akker- 
kuf).  At  the  same  time  he  is  a god  almost  universally  acknow- 
ledged in  the  invocations  of  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
kings,  in  which  he  has  a most  conspicuous  place.  In  Assyria 
he  seems  to  be  inferior  only  to  Asshur ; in  Chaldsea  to  Ba 
and  Ana. 

Of  Beltis,  the  wife  of  Bel-Nimrod,  a full  account  will  be 
given  presently.  Nin  or  Ninip — the  Assyrian  Hercules — was 
universally  regarded  as  their  son  ; and  he  is  frequently  joined 
with  Bel-Nimrod  in  the  invocations.  Another  famous  deity, 
the  Moon-god,  Sin  or  Hurki,  is  also  declared  to  be  Bel-Nimrod’ s 
son  in  some  inscriptions.  Indeed,  as  “ the  father  of  the  gods,” 
Bel-Nimrod  might  evidently  claim  an  almost  infinite  paternity. 

The  worship  of  Bel-Nimrod  in  Chaldsea  extends  through  the 
whole  time  of  the  monarchy.  It  has  been  shown  that  he  was 
probably  the  deified  Nimrod,  whose  apotheosis  would  take  place 
shortly  after  his  decease.  Urukh,  the  earliest  monumental  king, 
built  him  a temple  at  Niffer ; and  Kurri-galzu,  one  of  the  latest, 
paid  him  the  same  honour  at  Akkerkuf.  Urukh  also  frequently 
mentions  him  in  his  inscriptions  in  connexion  with  Hurki,  the 
Moon-god,  whom  he  calls  his  “ eldest  son.” 

BELTIS. 

Beltis,  the  wife  of  Bel-Nimrod,  presents  a strong  contrast  to 
Anata,  the  wife  of  Ana.  She  is  far  more  than  the  mere  female 
power  of  Bel-Nimrod,  being  in  fact  a separate  and  very  im- 
portant deity.  Her  common  title  is  “ the  Great  goddess.”  In 


120 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


Chaldaea  her  name  was  Mulita 4 or  Enuta — both  words  signify- 
ing 44  the  Lady  ; ” in  Assyria  she  was  Bilta  or  Bilta-Mpruta, 
the  feminine  forms  of  Bil  and  Bilu-Nipru.  Her  favourite  title 
was  44  the  Mother  of  the  Gods,”  or  44  the  Mother  of  the  Great 
Gods  ; ” whence  it  is  tolerably  clear  that  she  was  the  44  Dea 
Syria  ” worshipped  at  Hierapolis  under  the  Arian  appellation  of 
Mabog.5  Though  commonly  represented  as  the  wife  of  Bel- 
Nimrod,  and  mother  of  his  son  Nin  or  Hinip,  she  is  also  called 
44  the  wife  of  Nin,”  and  in  one  place  “ the  wife  of  Asshur.”  Her 
other  titles  are  44  the  lady  of  Bit- Ana,”  44  the  lady  of  Nipur,” 
44  the  Queen  of  the  land  ” or  44  of  the  lands,”  44  the  great  lady,” 
44  the  goddess  of  war  and  battle,”  and  44  the  queen  of  fecundity.” 
She  seems  thus  to  have  united  the  attributes  of  the  Juno, 
the  Ceres  or  Demeter,6  the  Bellona,  and  even  the  Diana  of  the 
classical  nations ; for  she  was  at  once  the  queen  of  heaven,  the 
goddess  who  makes  the  earth  fertile,  the  goddess  of  war  and 
battle,  and  the  goddess  of  hunting.  In  these  latter  capacities 
she  appears,  however,  to  have  been  gradually  superseded  by 
Ishtar,  who  sometimes  even  appropriates  her  higher  and  more 
distinctive  appellations. 

The  worship  of  Beltis  was  wide-spread,  and  her  temples  were 
very  numerous.  At  Erech  (Warka)  she  was  worshipped  on  the 
same  platform,  if  not  even  in  the  same  building,  with  Ana.  At 
Calneh  or  Nipur  (Niffer),  she  shared  fully  in  her  husband’s 
honours.  She  had  a shrine  at  Ur  (Mugheir),  another  at  Bubesi, 
and  another  outside  the  walls  of  Babylon.  Some  of  these 
temples  were  very  ancient,  those  at  Warka  and  Niffer  being 

4 Hence  the  Mylitta  (MvXirra)  of 
Herodotus  (i.  131,  199), and  perhaps  the 
Molis  (MdAts)  of  Nic.  Damascenus 
( Fragm . Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iii.p.  361,  note  16). 

It  has  been  usual  to  derive  these  words 

from  the  Hebrew  “ generare but 

no  similar  root  is  found  in  either  As- 
syrian or  Babylonian.  Mul  in  Hamitic 
Babylonian  is  the  exact  equivalent  of 
Bil  in  Semitic  Assyrian.  Both  signify 
“ lord,”  while  Bilta  and  Mulita  signify 
“ lady.” 


5 Mabog  is  “ the  mother  of  the  gods, 
from  ma  or  mata,  “ mother,”  and  baga , 
“ god  ” (Sclavonic  bog). 

6 Etymologists  have  been  puzzled  by 
the  name  Rhea  ('Pea) — one  of  the 
numerous  appellatives  of  the  “ Great 
Goddess  ” — who  is  known  also  as  Ceres, 
Cybele  or  Cybebe,  Mater  Dindymene, 
Magna  Mater,  Bona  Dea,  Dea  Phrygia, 
Ops,  Terra,  and  Tellus.  Perhaps  the  ex- 
planation is  to  be  found  in  the  numerical 
symbol  of  this  goddess,  which  was  15, 
pronounced  as  Hi  by  the  Chaldasans. 


Chap.  VII. 


HEA  OR  HOA. 


1 2 I 


built  by  IJrukh,  while  that  at  Mugheir  was  either  built  or 
repaired  by  Ismi-dagon. 

According  to  one  record,7  Beltis  was  a daughter  of  Ana.  It 
was  especially  as  “Queen  of  Nipur”  that  she  was  the  wife  of 
her  son  Nin.  Perhaps  this  idea  grew  up  out  of  the  fact  that  at 
Nipur  the  two  were  associated  together  in  a common  worship. 
It  appears  to  have  given  rise  to  some  of  the  Greek  traditions 
with  respect  to  Semiramis,  who  was  made  to  contract  an  in- 
cestuous marriage  with  her  own  son  Ninyas,  although  no  ex- 
planation can  at  present  be  given  of  the  application  to  Beltis 
of  that  name. 

HEA  or  HOA. 

The  third  god  of  the  first  Triad  was  Hea  or  Hoa,  probably 
the  Ails  (’Ao?)  of  Damascius.8  His  appellation  is  perhaps  best 
rendered  into  Greek  by  the  ,rfl7j  of  Helladius — the  name  given 
to  the  mystic  animal,  half  man,  half  fish,  which  came  up  from 
the  Persian  Gulf  to  teach  astronomy  and  letters  to  the  first 
settlers  on  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris.9  It  is  perhaps  contained 
also  in  the  word  by  which  Berosus  designates  this  same  creature 
— Oannes  (’fiarr???) 1 — which  may  be  explained  as  Hoa-ana,  or 
“ the  god  Hoa.”  There  are  no  means  of  strictly  determining 
the  precise  meaning  of  the  word  in  Babylonian ; but  it  is 
perhaps  allowable  to  connect  it,  provisionally,  with  the  Arabic 
Hiya,  which  is  at  once  “ life  ” and  “ a serpent,”  since,  according 
to  the  best  authority,  “ there  are  very  strong  grounds  for  con- 
necting Hea  or  Hoa  with  the  serpent  of  Scripture,  and  the 
Paradisaical  traditions  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  and  the  tree 
of  life.” 2 

Hoa  occupies,  in  the  first  Triad,  the  position  which  in  the 
classical  mythology  is  filled  by  Poseidon  or  Neptune,  and  in 
some  respects  he  corresponds  to  him.  He  is  “ the  lord  of  the 


7 The  inscription  on  the  open-mouthed 

lion,  now  in  the  British  Museum.  (See 
the  author’s  Herodotus , yol,  i.  p.  625, 
note  6.)  8 De  Princip.  1.  s.  c. 

9 Ap.  Phot.  Bibliothec.  cclxxxix.  p. 
1594. 


1 Beros.  Fr.  1,  § 3.  Oannes  has  been 
otherwise  explained.  It  has  been  thought 
to  signify  “ given  by  Ana.” 

2 Sir  H.  Bawlinson  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  600. 


122 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


earth,”  just  as  Neptune  is  <ycur)0'xp$ ; he  is  44  the  king  of  rivers ; ” 
and  he  comes  from  the  sea  to  teach  the  Babylonians ; but  he  is 
never  called  44  the  lord  of  the  sea.”  That  title  belongs  to  Nin 
or  Ninip.  Hoa  is  44  the  lord  of  the  abyss,”  or  of  *“  the  great 
deep,”  which  does  not  seem  to  be  the  sea,  but  something  distinct 
from  it.  His  most  important  titles  are  those  which  invest  him 
with  the  character,  so  prominently  brought  out  in  Oe  and 
Oannes,3  of  the  god  of  science  and  knowledge.  He  is  44  the 
intelligent  guide,”  or,  according  to  another  interpretation,  “ the 
intelligent  fish,” 4 “ the  teacher  of  mankind,”  44  the  lord  of 
understanding.”  One  of  his  emblems  is  the  44 wedge”  or 
44  arrow-head,”  the  essential  element  of  cuneiform  writing,  which 
seems  to  be  assigned  to  him  as  the  inventor,  or  at  least 
the  patron,  of  the  Chaldsean  alphabet.5  Another  is  the 
serpent,  which  occupies  so  conspicuous  a place  among 
the  symbols  of  the  gods  on  the  black  stones  recording 
benefactions,  and  which  sometimes  appears  upon  the 
cylinders.  This  symbol,  here  as  elsewhere,  is  emble- 
matic of  superhuman  knowledge — a record  of  the 
primeval  belief  that  44  the  serpent  was  more  subtle 
than  any  beast  of  the  field.”  6 The  stellar  name  of  Hoa  was 
Kimmut ; and  it  is  suspected  that  in  this  aspect  he  was  identi- 
fied with  the  constellation  Draco,  which  is  perhaps  the  Kimah 
of  Scripture.7  Besides  his  chief  character  of  44  god  of 
knowledge,”  Hoa  is  also  44  god  of  life,”  a capacity  in  which  the 
serpent  would  again  fitly  symbolise  him.8  He  was  likewise 


3 Cf.  Hellad.  1.  s.  c.,  and  Beros.  Fr. 
1,  § 3.  The  latter  writer  gave  the  fol- 
lowing account  of  Oannes — n apaBiB6vai, 
(prjal,  rois  avdpwTrois  ypap.p.aTto v teal 
/xadrumaTODV  Kal  re%v oov  TrauToBaTruv  e/4- 
ireiplav,  Kal  nroXewv  avvoiKicrpLOvs,  Kal 
lepuv  iBpvffeis,  Kal  v6p.uv  elayy^creis, 
Kal  yew/xerpiau  BiBacrKeiv,  Kal  airepyaTa 
Kal  Kapivwv  ffvvayuyas  vTroBeiKVvvai, 
Kal  avvoAws  irdura  ra  nphs  yfiepcacnv 
aviiKovTa  filov  nrapaBiBdvai  to?s  avQpca- 
ttois ’ air b Be  rov  xpfyov  eKeivov  ovBev 
&KX o 7r epiacrbv  evpedrivai. 

4 Berosus  and  Helladius  "both  agree  in 

regarding  Hoa  ( ‘'Clri  or  3Xlt£vv7js)  as  the 

Fish-God ; but  from  the  inscriptions  it 


appears  that  the  Fish-God  was  really 
Nin  or  Ninip.  (See  below,  p.  132.) 

5  So  Berosus,  1.  s.  c.  6 Gen.  iii.  1. 

7 Job  ix.  9 ; xxxviii.  31 ; Amos  v.  8. 
There  seem  to  be  no  grounds  for  our 
translating  Kimah  as  “ the  Pleiades.” 
It  is  not  even  a plural. 

8 It  is  not  perhaps  altogether  clear 
why  the  serpent  has  been  so  frequently 
regarded  as  an  emblem  of  life.  Some 
say,  because  serpents  are  long-lived ; 
others  because  the  animal  readily  formed 
a circle,  and  a circle  was  the  symbol  of 
eternity.  But,  whatever  the  reason, 
the  fact  cannot  be  doubted. 


Chap.  VII. 


DAV-KINA  — SIN  OR  HTJRKI. 


123 


“ god  of  glory,”  and  “ god  of  giving,”  being,  as  Berosns  said, 
the  great  giver  of  good  gifts  to  man.9 

The  monuments  do  not  contain  much  evidence  of  the  early 
worship  of  Hoa.  His  name  appears  on  a very  ancient  stone 
tablet  brought  from  Mugheir  (Ur) ; but  otherwise  his  claim  to 
be  accounted  one  of  the  primeval  gods  must  rest  on  the  testi- 
mony of  Berosus  and  Helladius,  who  represent  him  as  known  to 
the  first  settlers.  He  seems  to  have  been  the  tutelary  god  of 
Is  or  Hit , which  Isidore  of  Charax  calls  Aeipolis  1 (’ KeiiroXis), 
or  “ Hea’s  city ; ” but  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  a very 
ancient  place.  The  Assyrian  kings  built  him  temples  at  Asshur 
and  Cal  ah. 

Hoa  had  a wife  Dav-Kina,  of  whom  a few  words  will  be  said 
presently.  Their  most  celebrated  son  was  Merodach  or  Bel- 
Merodach,  the  Belus  of  Babylonian  times.  As  Kimmut,  Hoa 
was  also  the  father  of  Nebo,  whose  functions  bear  a general 
resemblance  to  his  own. 


DAV-KINA. 

Dav-Kina,  the  wife  of  Hoa,  is  clearly  the  Dauke  or  Davke 
(A avrcr])  of  Damascius,2  who  was  the  wife  of  Aiis  and  mother  of 
Belus  (Bel-Merodach).  Her  name  is  thought  to  signify  “ the 
chief  lady.” 3 * * * * She  has  no  distinctive  titles  or  important  position 
in  the  Pantheon,  but,  like  Anata,  takes  her  husband’s  epithets 
with  a mere  distinction  of  gender. 

• SIN  or  HURKT. 

The  first  god  of  the  second  Triad  is  Sin  or  Hurki,  the  moon- 
deity.  It  is  in  condescension  to  Creek  notions  that  Berosus 
inverts  the  true  Chaldsean  order,  and  places  the  sun  before  the 

2 De  Princip.  1.  s.  c.  ToC  5e  ’Aov  real 
AavKrjs  vTov  yeveaOcu  rbv  BrjAoi /. 

3 Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  author’s 

Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  601,  note  8.  Mo- 

vers and  Bunsen  derive  AavK-r]  from 

the  Heb.  “ tundere,”  and  interpret 

it  “ strife,”  comparing  the  Syriac  dau- 
kat.  (See  Bunsen’s  Egypt , vol.  iv.  pp. 

155.  156.) 


& See  the  passage  cited  at  full  length 
in  note  3.  According  to  Assyrian  no- 
tions, Hoa  did  not  confine  his  presents 
to  men.  One  of  the  kings  of  Assyria 
says — “The  senses  of  seeing,  hearing, 
and  understanding,  which  Hoa  allotted 
to  the  whole  4000  gods  of  heaven  and 
earth,  they  in  the  fulness  of  their  hearts 
granted  to  me.” 

1 Mans.  Parth.  p.  5. 


124 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


moon  in  liis  enumeration  of  the  heavenly  bodies.4  Chaldsean 
mythology  gives  a very  decided  preference  to  the  lesser  luminary, 
perhaps  because  the  nights  are  more  pleasant  than  the  days  in 
hot  countries.  With  respect  to  the  names  of  the  god,  we  may 
observe  that  Sin,  the  Assyrian  or  Semitic  term,  is  a word  of 
quite  uncertain  etymology,  which,  however,  is  found  applied  to 
the  moon  in  many  Semitic  languages ; 5 while  Hurki,  which  is 
the  Chaldsean  or  Hamitic  name,  is  probably  from  a root  cognate 
to  the  Hebrew  ’ Ur,  “viy,  “ vigilare,”  whence  is  derived  the 
term  sometimes  used  to  signify  “ an  angel  ” 6 — ’Jr,  “ a 
watcher.” 

The  titles  of  Hurki  are  usually  somewhat  vague.  He  is 
“ the  chief,”  “ the  powerful,”  “ the  lord  of  spirits,”  “ he  who 
dwells  in  the  great  heavens  ; ” or,  hyperbolically,  “ the  chief  of 
the  gods  of  heaven  and  earth,”  <£  the  king  of  the  gods,”  and  even 
“ the  god  of  the  gods.”  Sometimes,  however,  his  titles  are 
more  definite  and  particular : as,  firstly,  when  they  belong  to 
him  in  respect  of  his  being  the  celestial  luminary — e.  g.  “ the 
bright,”  “ the  shining,”  “ the  lord  of  the  month  ; ” and,  secondly, 
when  they  represent  him  as  presiding  over  buildings  and  archi- 
tecture, which  the  Chaldseans  appear  to  have  placed  under  his 
special  superintendence.  In  this  connexion  he  is  called  “ the 
supporting  architect,”  “ the  strengthener  of  fortifications,”  and, 
more  generally,  “ the  lord  of  building  ” (Bel-zuna).7  Bricks, 
the  Chaldaean  building  material,  were  of  course  under  his 
protection;  and  the  sign  which  designates  them  is  also  the 
sign  of  the  month  over  which  he  was  considered  to  e£ert  par- 
ticular care.8  His  ordinary  symbol  is  the  crescent  or  new 
moon,  which  is  commonly  represented  as  large,  but  of  extreme 


4 Beros.  Er.  1,  § 6. 

5 Sin  is  used  for  the  Moon  in  Men- 
daean  and  Syriac  at  the  present  day. 
It  is  the  name  given  to  the  Moon-God 
in  St.  James  of  Seruj’s  list  of  the  idols 
of  Harran ; and  it  was  the  term  used 
for  Monday  by  the  Sabaeans  as  late  as 
the  9th  century. 

6 As  in  Daniel  iv.  13,  17,  and  in  the 

Syriac  liturgy. 


7 The  term  zum  may  perhaps  be 
connected  with  the  Heb.  }T,  “form.” 

Zanan  is  common  in  Assyrian  for 
“ building.” 

8 Sin  is  expressly  called  “ the  god  of 
the  month  Sivan  of  happy  name and 
it  may  be  suspected  that  his  name  is  a 
mere  contraction  of  Sivan.  The  sign 
used  for  the  month  Sivan  is  also  the 
sign  which  represents  “ bricks.” 


Chap.  VII. 


SIN  OR  HURKI,  THE  MOON-GOD. 


125 


thinness 


forms 


; though  not  without  a certain  variety  in  the 


'J . The  most  curious  and  the  most  purely 

conventional  representations  are  a linear  semicircle  , and 

an  imitation  of  this  semicircle  formed  by  three  straight  lines  9 
\ / . The  illuminated  part  of  the  moon’s  disk  is  always 

turned  directly  towards  the  horizon,  a position  but  rarely  seen 
in  nature. 

The  chief  Chaldsean  temple  to  the  moon-god  was  at  Ur  or 
Hur  (Mugheir),  a city  which  probably  derived  its  name  from 
him,1  and  which  was  under  his  special  protection.  He  had  also 
shrines  at  Babylon  and  Borsippa,  and  likewise  at  Calah  and 
Dur-Sargina  (Khorsabad).  Few  deities  appear  to  have  been 
worshipped  with  such  constancy  by  the  Chaldaean  kings.  His 
great  temple  at  Ur  was  begun  by  Urukh,  and  finished  by  his  son 
Ilgi — the  two  most  ancient  of  all  the  monarchs.  Later  in  the 
series  we  find  him  in  such  honour  that  every  king’s  name 
during  some  centuries  comprises  the  name  of  the  moon-god  in 
it.  On  the  restoration  of  the  Chaldaean  power  he  is  again  in 
high  repute.  Nebuchadnezzar  mentions  him  with  respect ; and 
Nabonidus,  the  last  native  monarch,  restores  his  shrine  at  Ur, 
and  accumulates  upon  him  the  most  high-sounding  titles.2 

The  moon-god  is  called,  in  more  than  one  inscription,  the 
eldest  son  of  Bel-Nimrod.  He  had  a wife  (the  moon-goddess) 
whose  title  was  “the  great  lady,”  and  who  is  frequently  asso- 
ciated with  him  in  the  lists.  She  and  her  husband  were  con- 
jointly the  tutelary  deities  of  Ur  or  Hur;  and  a particular 


9 These  forms  are  taken  chiefly  from 
the  engravings  of  cylinders  published 
by  the  late  Mr.  Cullimore. 

1 It  is  not  uncommon  for  the  second 
syllable  in  an  Assyrian  or  Babylonian 
god’s  name  to  be  dropped  as  unim- 
portant. We  have  both  Asshur  and  As, 
both  Sansi  and  San,  both  Ninip  and  Nin, 
&c.  Thus  we  might  expect  to  find  both 
Hur  and  Hurki.  It  is  not  perhaps  a 
proof  of  the  connexion — but  still  it  is 
an  argument  in  favour  of  it— to  find 


that  when  Ur  changed  its  name  to 
Camarina  (Eupolem.  ap.  Alex.  Polyhist. 
Fr.  3),  the  new  appellation  was  a de- 
rivative from  another  word  ( Kamar , 
Arab.)  signifying  “ the  moon.”  (Sir 
H.  Rawlinson  in  the  author’s  Herodotus, 
vol.  i.  p.  616.) 

2 Nabonidus  calls  him  “the  chief  of 
the  gods  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  king 
of  the  gods,  god  of  gods,  he  who  dwells 
in  the  great  heavens,”  &c. 


126 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YU. 


portion  of  the  great  temple  there  was  dedicated  to  her  honour 
especially.  Her  “ ark  ” or  “ tabernacle,”  which  was  separate  from 
that  of  her  husband,  was  probably,  as  well  as  his,  deposited  in 
this  sanctuary.  It  bore  the  title  of  “ the  lesser  light,”  while  his 
was  called,  emphatically,  “ the  light.” 

SAN  or  SANSI. 

San  or  Sansi,  the  sun-god,  was  the  second  member  of  the 
second  Triad.  The  main  element  of  this  name  is  probably  con- 
nected with  the  root  shani , which  is  in  Arabic,  and  perhaps 

in  Hebrew,  “ bright.” 3 Hence  we  may  perhaps  compare  our 
own  word  “ sun  ” with  the  Chaldsean  “ San ; ” for  “ sun  ” is  most 
likely  connected  etymologically  with  “ sheen  ” and  “ shine.” 
Shamas  or  Shemesh,  the  Semitic  title  of  the  god,  is  alto- 
gether separate  and  distinct,  signifying,  as  it  does,  the  minister - 
ing  office  of  the  sun,4  and  not  the  brilliancy  of  his  light.  A 
trace  of  the  Hamitic  name  appears  in  the  well-known  city 
Bethsan,5  whose  appellation  is  declared  by  Eugesippus  to  signify 
“ domus  Solis,”  “the  house  of  the  sun.”  6 

The  titles  applied  to  the  sun-god  have  not  often  much  direct 
reference  to  his  physical  powers  or  attributes.  He  is  called 
indeed,  in  some  places,  “ the  lord  of  fire,”  “ the  light  of  the 
gods,”  “the  ruler  of  the  day,”  and  “he  wrho  illumines  the 
expanse  of  heaven  and  earth.”  But  commonly  he  is  either 
spoken  of  in  a more  general  way,  as  “ the  regent  of  all  things,” 
“ the  establisher  of  heaven  and  earth ; ” or,  if  special  functions 
are  assigned  to  him,  they  are  connected  with  his  supposed 
“ motive  ” power,  as  inspiring  warlike  thoughts  in  the  minds  of 


3 In  Hebrew  shani,  is  usually 

translated  “ scarlet,”  but  some  learned 
Jews  suggest  that  the  true  meaning  is 
bright.  (See  Newman’s  Hebrew  Lexicon 
ad  voc.,  and  compare  Gesenius.) 

4 From  “ ministrare.”  (See 

Buxtorf  ad  voc.) 

5 Josh.  xvii.  11 ; Judg.  i.  27 ; 1 Sam. 
xxxi.  10,  &c.  The  Hebrew  form  is 

Beth-shean,  or  Beth- 

shan.  The  LXX  give  B aiOadu,  Baid- 


craap,  BaidaeiiA,  and  Brjtiaav.  Josephus 
has  B-fjOaava  and  Bedcrdvr]-  The  Tal- 
mud contracts  the  word  to  Bisan,  |D'3 ; 
and  the  existing  name  is  Beisan.  As 
Scythopolis  this  city  was  well  known  to 
the  Greeks  and  Romans. 

6  See  the  small  treatise  of  Eugesippus, 
Be  Locis,  &c.,  in  the  folio  edition  of  the 
Byzantine  Historians  (vol.  xxiii.  sub 
fin.).  “ Scythopolis  civitas,  Galilsese 
metropolis,  quae  et  Bethsan,  id  est, 
domus  solis.’’ 


Chap.  VII. 


SAN  OR  SANSI. 


127 


the  kings,  directing  and  favourably  influencing  tlieir  expeditions ; 
or  again,  as  helping  them  to  discharge  any  of  the  other  active 
duties  of  royalty.  San  is  “the  supreme  ruler  who  casts  a 
favourable  eye  on  expeditions,”  “ the  vanquisher  of  the  king’s 
enemies,”  “ the  breaker-up  of  opposition.”  He  “ casts  his 
motive  influence”  over  the  monarchs,  and  causes  them  to 
“ assemble  their  chariots  and  warriors  ” — he  goes  forth  with 
their  armies,  and  enables  them  to  extend  their  dominions — he 
chases  their  enemies  before  them,  causes  opposition  to  cease, 
and  brings  them  back  with  victory  to  their  own  countries. 
Besides  this,,  he  helps  them  to  sway  the  sceptre  of  power,  and  to 
rule  over  their  subjects  with  authority.  It  seems  that,  from 
observing  the  manifest  agency  of  the  material  sun  in  stimulating 
all  the  functions  of  nature,  the  Chaldseans  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  sun-god  exerted  a similar  influence  on  the 
minds  of  men,  and  was  the  great  motive  agent  in  human 
history. 

The  chief  seats  of  the  sun-god’s  worship  in  Chaldaea  appear  to 
have  been  the  two  famous  cities  of  Larsa  (Ellasar  ?)  and  Sippara. 
The  great  temple  of  the  Sun,  called  Bit-Parra,7  at  the  former 
place,  was  erected  by  Urukh,  repaired  by  more  than  one  of  the 
later  Chaldsean  monarchs,  and  completely  restored  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. At  Sippara,  the  worship  of  the  sun- god  was  so 
predominant,  that  Abydenus,  probably  following  Berosus,  calls 
the  town  Heliopolis.8  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
Adrammelech,  or  “Fire-king,” 9 whose  worship  the  Sepharvites 
(or  people  of  Sippara)  introduced  into  Samaria,1  was  this  deity. 
Sippara  is  called  Tsipar  sha  Shamas,  “ Sippara  of  the  Sun,”  in 
various  inscriptions,  and  possessed  a temple  of  the  god  which 
was  repaired  and  adorned  by  many  of  the  ancient  Chaldsean 
kings,  as  well  as  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Nabonidus. 


7 It  would  seem  from  this  name  that 
Parra  was  also  a title  under  which  the 
Sun  was  known  in  Chaldsea  in  the  early 
times.  May  not  this  title  be  connected 
with  the  Egyptian  Ph-ra  or  Pi-ra,  “ the 
sun,”  whence  probably  the  Hebrew 
Pharaoh  ? 

8 Abyden.  Er.  1 ; Syncell.  vol.  i.  p.  70. 


9  Winer,  Realuorterbuch , ad  voc. 
“ Adrammelech.”  Sir  H.  Rawlinson 
allows  this  derivation  to  he  not  im- 
probable (Rawlinson’s  Herodotus , vol.  i. 
p.  611),  suggesting,  however,  another, 
from  edim,  “ the  arranger,”  and  melek 
(ibid.).  1 2 Kings  xvii.  31. 


128 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YIT. 


The  general  prevalence  of  San’s  worship  is  indicated  most 
clearly  by  the  cylinders.  Few  comparatively  of  those  which 
have  any  divine  symbol  upon  them  are  without  his.  The  symbol 


is  either  a simple  circle  (^)j  a quartered  disk 
raved  orb  of  a more  elaborate  character  . 


or  a four- 


San  or  Sansi  had  a wife,  Ai,  Gula,  or  Anunit,  of  whom  it 
now  follows  to  speak. 


AI,  GULA,  or  ANUNIT. 

Ai,  Gula,  or  Anunit,  was  the  female  power  of  the  sun,  and 
was  commonly  associated  with  San  in  temples  and  invocations. 
Her  names  are  of  uncertain  signification,  except  the  second, 
Gula,  which  undoubtedly  means  44  great,”  being  so  translated  in 
the  vocabularies.2  It  is  suspected  that  the  three  terms  may 
have  been  attached  respectively  to  the  44  rising,”  the  44  culmi- 
nating,” and  the  44  setting  sun,”  3 since  they  do  not  appear  to 
interchange;  while  the  name  Gula  is  distinctly  stated  in  one 
inscription  to  belong  to  the  44  great  ” goddess,  44  the  wife  of  the 
meridian  Sun.”  It  is  perhaps  an  objection  to  this  view,  that 
the  male  Sun,  who  is  decidedly  the  superior  deity,  does  not 
appear  to  be  manifested  in  Chaldsea  under  any  such  threefold 
representation.4 

As  a substantive  deity,  distinct  from  her  husband,  Gula’s 
characteristics  are  that  she  presides  over  life  and  over  fecundity. 
It  is  not  quite  clear  whether  these  offices  belong  to  her  alone, 
or  whether  she  is  associated  in  each  of  them  with  a sister 
goddess.  There  is  a 44  Mistress  of  Life,”  who  must  be  regarded 
as  the  special  dispenser  of  that  blessing  ; and  there  is  a 44  Mis- 
tress of  the  Gods,”  who  is  expressly  said  to  44  preside  over 


2  Gula  is  rendered  by  rabu  in  the 
vocabularies,  which  is  the  Hebrew  rab, 
21  “ a great  one  ” — and  thence  “ a 

doctor.”  It  is  probably  connected  with 
the  Abyssinian  guda,  “ great ; ” but  not 

with  bin,  or  at  any  rate  only  indi- 
rectly. 


Ai  may  perhaps  be  the  same  word 
as  the  Agau  (Abyssinian)  am,  ‘‘  light.” 

3 Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  612. 

4 In  Assyria  such  a threefold  worship 
of  the  male  Sun  is  found;  but  even 
there  we  have  no  triple  nomenclature. 


Chap.  YII. 


VUL  OK  IVA. 


129 


births.”  Concerning  these  two  personages  we  cannot  at  present 
determine  whether  they  are  really  distinct  deities,  or  whether 
they  are  not  rather  aspects  of  G-ula,  sufficiently  marked  to  be 
represented  in  the  temples  by  distinct  idols.5 

Gula  was  worshipped  in  close  combination  with  her  husband, 
both  at  Larsa  and  Sippara.  Her  name  appears  in  the  inscrip- 
tions connected  with  both  places ; and  she  is  probably  the 
“ Anammelech,”  whom  the  Sepharvites  honoured  in  conjunction 
with  Adrammelech,  the  “ Fire-King.” 6 In  later  times  she  had 
also  temples  independent  of  her  husband,  at  Babylon  and  Bor- 
sippa,  as  well  as  at  Calah  and  Asshur. 

The  emblem  now  commonly  regarded  as  symbolizing  Gula  is 
the  eight-rayed  disk  or  orb,  which  frequently  accompanies  the 
orb  with  four  rays  in  the  Babylonian  representations.  In  lieu 

of  a disk,  we  have  sometimes  an  eight-rayed  star  , and 


even  occasionally  a star  with  six  rays  only 


It  is  curious 


that  the  eight-rayed  star  became  at  an  early  period  the  universal 
emblem  of  divinity;  but  perhaps  we  can  only  conclude  from 
this  the  stellar  origin  of  the  worship  generally,  and  not  any 
special  pre-eminence  or  priority  of  Anunit  over  other  deities. 


VUL  or  IVA. 

The  third  member  of  the  second  Triad  is  the  god  of  the 
atmosphere,  whose  name  it  has  been  proposed  to  render 
phonetically  in  a great  variety  of  ways.7  Until  a general  agree- 
ment shall  be  established,  it  is  thought  best  to  retain  a name 
with  which  readers  are  familiar ; and  the  form  Vul  will  there- 
fore be  used  in  these  volumes.  Were  Iva  the  correct  articula- 


5 The  only  place  where  these  two 
deities  are  clearly  distinguished  from 
Gula  is  in  the  list  of  the  idols  con- 
tained in  the  great  temple  of  Bel-Mero- 
dach  at  Babylon.  But  for  this  notice, 
the  names  would  certainly  have  been 
regarded  as  nothing  more  than  titles  of 
Gula. 

6 No  satisfactory  explanation  has  been 
VOL.  I. 


given  of  the  word  Anammelech.  If  it 
represents  the  female  power  of  the  sun, 
we  must  suppose  that  Ana  is  an  ab- 
breviated form  of  Anunit,  and  that 

melek , is  for  malcah,  i"D^D?  the 

Jews  from  contempt  not  caring  to  be 
correct  in  the  names  of  false  gods. 

* 7 See  above,  p.  112,  note  5.  \ 

\ 


K 


130 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


tion,  we  might  regard  the  term  as  simply  the  old  Hamitic  name 
for  44  the  air,”  and  illustrate  it  by  the  Arabic  heva,  \y£>,  which  has 
still  that  meaning. 

The  importance  of  Yul  in  the  Chaldsean  mythology,  and  his 
strong  positive  character,  contrast  remarkably  with  the  weak  and 
shadowy  features  of  Uranus,  or  AEther,  in  the  classical  system. 
Yul  indeed  corresponds  in  great  measure  with  the  classical  Zeus 
or  Jupiter,  being,  like  him,  the  real  “ Prince  of  the  power  of 
the  air,”  the  lord  of  the  whirlwind  and  the  tempest,  and 
the  wielder  of  the  thunderbolt.  His  standard  titles  are  “ the 
minister  of  heaven  and  earth,”  44  the  Lord  of  the  air,”  44  he  who 
makes  the  tempest  to  rage.”  He  is  regarded  as  the  destroyer 
of  crops,  the  rooter-up  of  trees,  the  scatter er  of  the  harvest. 
Famine,  scarcity,  and  even  their  consequence,  pestilence,  are 
assigned  to  him.  He  is  said  to  have  in  his  hand  a 44  flaming 
sword,”  with  which  he  effects  his  works  of  destruction ; and  this 
44  flaming  sword,”  wThich  probably  represents  lightning,  becomes 
his  emblem  upon  the  tablets  and  cylinders,  where 
it  is  figured  as  a double  or  triple  bolt.8  Yul  again, 
as  the  god  of  the  atmosphere,  gives  the  rain ; and 
hence  he  is  44  the  careful  and  beneficent  chief,”  44  the 
giver  of  abundance,”  44  the  lord  of  fecundity.”  In 
this  capacity  he  is  naturally  chosen  to  preside  over 
canals,  the  great  fertilizers  of  Babylonia ; and  we  find  among 
his  titles  44  the  lord  of  canals,”  and  44  the  establisher  of  works 
of  irrigation.” 

There  is  not  much  evidence  of  the  worship  of  Yul  in  Chaldsea 
during  the  early  times.  That  he  must  have  been  known 
appears  from  the  fact  of  his  name  forming  an  element  in  the 
name  of  Shamas-Yui,  son  of  Ismi-dagon,  who  ruled  over  Chaldsea 
about  B.o.  1850.9  It  is  also  certain  that  this  Shamas-Yul  set 
up  his  worship  at  Asshur  (Kileh-Sherghat)  in  Assyria,  asso- 
ciating him  there  with  his  father  Ana,  and  building  to  them 


8 Bolts  of  the  kind  represented  were 
also  used  as  trophies  of  victory.  Ti- 
glath-Pileser  I.  made  one  of  copper  and 

inscribed  upon  it  a record  of  his  con- 


quests. (Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  609.) 

9 See  below,  ch.  viii.  p.  164. 


Chap.  VII. 


BAR,  NIN,  OR  NINIP. 


131 


conjointly  a great  temple.1  Further  than  this  we  have  no  proof 
that  he  was  an  object  of  worship  in  the  time  of  the  first  monarchy; 
though  in  the  time  of  Assyrian  preponderance,  as  well  as  in 
that  of  the  later  Babylonian  Empire,  there  were  few  gods  more 
venerated. 

Yul  is  sometimes  associated  with  a goddess,  Shala  or  Tala, 
who  is  probably  the  Salambo  or  Salambas  of  the  lexicographers.2 
The  meaning  of  her  name  is  uncertain;3  and  her  epithets  are 
for  the  most  .part  obscure.  Her  ordinary  title  is  sarrat  or 
sharrat,  “ queen,”  the  feminine  of  the  common  word  mVf  which 
means  “ Chief,”  “ King,”  or  “ Sovereign.” 

BAR,  NIN,  or  NINIP. 

If  we  are  right  in  regarding  the  five  gods  who  stand  next  to 
the  Triad  formed  of  the  Moon,  the  Sun,  and  the  Atmosphere,  as 
representatives  of  the  five  planets  visible  to  the  naked  eye,  the 
god  Nin,  or  Ninip,  should  be  Saturn.  His  names  Bar,  and  Nin, 
are  respectively  a Semitic  and  a Hamitic  term  signifying 
“lord”  or  “master;’  Nin-ip,  his  full  Hamitic  appellation, 
signifies  “ Nin,  by  name,”  or  “ he  whose  name  is  Nin ; ” and, 
similarly,  his  full  Semitic  appellation  seems  to  have  been  Bar- 
shem,  “ Bar,  by  name,”  or  “ he  whose  name  is  Bar  ” — a term 
which  is  not  indeed  found  in  the  inscriptions,  but  which  appears 
to  have  been  well  known  to  the  early  Syrians  and  Armenians,4 
and  which  was  probably  the  origin  of  the  title  Barsemii,  borne 
by  the  kings  of  Hatra  ( Eadhr  near  Kileh-Sherghat)  in  Roman 
times.5 

In  character  and  attributes  the  classical  god,  whom  Nin  most 
closely  resembles,  is,  however,  not  Saturn,  but  Hercules.  An  indi- 
cation of  this  connexion  is  perhaps  contained  in  the  Herodotean 


1 See  the  Inscription  of  Tiglath-JPi- 
leser  I p.  62. 

2 Hesychius  uses  the  form  2aAa/xj8ci>, 
and  calls  the  goddess  “ the  Babylonian 
Venus.”  In  the  Etymologicum  Magnum 
the  form  used  is  ’SaXapfias. 

3 The  second  element  in  Salambo  or 
Salambas  is  probably  amma  (Heb.  DK), 

“ a mother.” 


4 See  Mos.  Choren.  Hist.  Armen,  i.  13, 
“ Barsamum  ob  fortissimas  res  gestas  in 
Deos  ascriptum  ad  longum  tempus  Syri 
coluere.”  ii.  13,  “Tigranes  in  Mesopo- 
tamiam  descendit,  et  nactus  ibi  Barsami 
statuam,  quam  ex  ebore  et  beryllo  fac- 
tam  argento  ornaverat,  deportari  earn 
jubet,  et  in  Thordano  oppido  locari.” 

5 Herodian.  iii.  1,  § 11. 

K 2 


32 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


genealogy,  wliich  makes  Hercules  an  ancestor  of  Ninus.6  Many 
classical  traditions,  we  must  remember,  identified  Hercules  with 
Saturn ; 7 and  it  seems  certain  that  in  the  East  at  any  rate  this 
identification  was  common.8  Nin,  in  the  inscriptions,  is  the  god 
of  strength  and  courage.  He  is  “ the  lord  of  the  brave,”  “ the 
champion,”  “ the  warrior  who  subdues  foes,”  “ he  who  strengthens 
the  heart  of  his  followers ;”  and  again,  “ the  destroyer  of 

enemies, the  reducer  of  the  dis- 
obedient,” “ the  exterminator  of 
rebels,”  “ he  whose  sword  is  good.” 
In  many  respects  he  bears  a close 
resemblance  to  Nergal  or  Mars. 
Like  him,  he  is  a god  of  battle  and 
of  the  cnace,  presiding  over  the 
king’s  expeditions,  whether  for  war 
or  hunting,  and  giving  success  in 
both  alike.  At  the  same  time  he 
has  qualities  which  seem  wholly  un- 
connected with  any  that  have  been 
hitherto  mentioned.  He  is  the  true 
“ Eish-God  ” of  Berosus,9  and  is 
figured  as  such  in  the  sculptures. 
In  this  point  of  view  he  is  called 
“ the  god  of  the  sea,”  “ he  who 
dwells  in  the  deep,”  and  again, 
somewhat  curiously,  “ the  opener 
of  aqueducts.”  Besides  these  epi- 
thets he  has  many  of  a more 
general  character,  as  “the  power- 
Figure  of  Nin,  the  Fish-God.  ful  chief,”  “ the  supreme,”  “ the 
first  of  the  gods,”  “ the  favourite  of  the  gods,”  “ the  chief  of 
the  spirits,”  and  the  like.  Again,  he  has  a set  of  epithets, 


6 Herod,  i.  7. 

7 Lydus,  De  Mensibus,  iv.  46  ; Athe- 
nag.  Leg.  pro  Christ,  xv.  6 ; Daraasc. 

de  Princip. 

8 See  the  Memoir  of  M.  Raoul  Ro- 
chette  on  the  Assyrian  Hercules  in  the 

17  th  volume  of  the  Mdm.  de  l' Institute 


where  this  point  is  abundantly  proved. 

9 Fr.  1,  § 3.  T2>  pev  o\ov  aoofxa  %xov 

IxOvos,  in rb  8e  t-^v  KecpaXrjj/  Trapcnre- 
<f>mv7au  &X\r]v  Ke<pa\)]v  viroKoiTe)  rr\s 
rov  IxQvos  KecpaXris,  Kal  ir6Sas  oixoiws 
avQpc&Trov,  TrapaneipvKdTas  8e  e/c  T7js 
ovpas  tov  ixOuos. 


Chap.  VII. 


NIN’S  EMBLEM,  THE  MAN-BULL. 


133 


which  seem  to  point  to  his  stellar  character,  very  difficult  to 
reconcile  with  the  notion,  that, 
as  a celestial  luminary,  he  was 
Saturn.  We  find  him  called  44  the 
light  of  heaven  and  earth,”  44  he 
who,  like  the  sun,  the  light  of 
the  gods,  irradiates  the  nations.” 

These  phrases  appear  to  point 
to  the  Moon,  or  to  some  very 
brilliant  star,  and  are  scarcely  re- 
concilable with  the  notion  that  he 
was  the  dark  and  distant  Saturn. 

Nin’s  emblem  in  Assyria  is  the 
Man-Bull,  the  impersonation  of  - 
strength  and  power.  He  guards 
the  palaces  of  the  Assyrian  kings, 
who  reckon  him  their  tutelary 
god,  and  give  his  name  to  their 
capital  city.  We  may  conjecture 
that  in  Babylonia  his  emblem  was 
the  sacred  fish,  which  is  often 
seen  under  different  forms  upon 
the  cylinders. 

The  monuments  furnish  no  evidence  of  the  early  worship  of 
Nin  in  Chaldsea.  We  may  perhaps  gather  the  fact  from  Berosus’ 
account  of  the  Fish-God  as  an  early  object  of  vene- 
ration in  that  region,10  as  well  as  from  the  Hamitic 
etymology  of  the  name  by  which  he  was  ordinarily 
known  even  in  Assyria.1  There  he  was  always 
one  of  the  most  important  deities.  His  temple  at 
Nineveh  was  very  famous,  and  is  noticed  by 
Tacitus  in  his  ‘Annals;’2  and  he  had  likewise 
two  temples  at  Calah  (Nimrud),  both  of  them  <s 
buildings  of  some  pretension. 


Nin’s  emblem,  the  Man-Bull. 


10  The  Fish-god  (’{law???)  comes  out  of 
the  Red  Sea  (Persian  Gulf)  to  instruct 
the  settlers  in  Chaldcea. 

1 That  the  Assyrians  commonly  used 
the  Hamitic  Nin,  or  Ninip,  and  not  the 


Semitic  Bar,  or  Barshem,  is  proved  by 
the  traditions  concerning  Ninus,  and 
by  the  name  of  their  capital  city. 

2 Tacit.  Ann.  xii.  13. 


134 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


It  has  been  already  mentioned 3 that  Nin  was  the  son  of  Bel- 
Nimrod,  and  that  Beltis  was  both  his  wife  and  his  mother. 
These  relationships  are  well  established,  since  they  are  repeatedly 
asserted.  One  tablet,  however,  inverts  the  genealogy,  and 
makes  Bel-Nimrod  the  son  of  Nin,  instead  of  his  father.  The 
contradiction  perhaps  springs  from  the  double  character  of  this 
divinity,  who,  as  Saturn,  is  the  father,  but,  as  Hercules,  the  son 
of  Jupiter. 

BEL-MERODACH. 

Bel-Merodach  is,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  planet  Jupiter,  which 
is  still  called  Bel  by  the  Mendseans.  The  name  Merodach  is 
of  uncertain  etymology  and  meaning.  It  has  been  compared 
with  the  Persian  mardak ,4  the  diminutive  of  mard,  “ a man,” 
and  with  the  Arabic  Mirrich ,5  which  is-  the  name  of  the  planet 
Mars.  But,  as  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  term 
belongs  to  the  Hamitic  Babylonian,  it  is  in  vain  to  have  recourse 
to  Arian  or  Semitic  tongues  for  its  derivation.  Most  likely  the 
word  is  a descriptive  epithet,  originally  attached  to  the  name 
Bel,  in  the  same  way  as  Nipru,  but  ultimately  usurping  its 
place  and  coming  to  be  regarded  as  the  proper  name  of  the 
deity.  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  phonetic  representative  of 
Merodach  has  been  found  on  the  monuments;  if  so,  the  pro- 
nunciation should,  apparently,  be  Amardak,  whence  we  might 
derive  the  Amordacia  (’A/iopSa/cia)  of  Ptolemy.6 

The  titles  and  attributes  of  Merodach  are  of  more  than  usual 
vagueness.  In  the  most  ancient  monuments  which  mention 
him,  he  seems  to  be  called  “the  old  man  of  the  gods,”7  and 
“ the  judge  ” ; he  also  certainly  has  the  pates,  which  in  early 
times  were  the  seats  of  justice,,  under  his  special  protection. 
Thus  he  would  seem  to  be  the  god  of  justice  and  judgment— 


3 See  above,  page  120. 

4 Gesenius,  Lexicon  Hebraicum,  ad  voc. 
“ Merodach.” 

5 Kitto’s  Biblical  Cyclopaedia,  vol.  ii. 
p.  328. 

6 This  is  Ptolemy’s  name  for  a dis- 

trict of  Babylonia  (see  his  Geography, 
v.  20).  The  Latin  translator  renders  it 
by  Mardocaea. 


7 So  the  Phoenicians  worshipped  Bel 
as  BeAtflar,  or  JfPN  ^11,  “the  old  Bel” 
(Damasc.  ap.  Phot.  Bibliothec.  p.*  343) ; 
and  the  Sabseans  of  Harran  called  their 
Bel,  “ Bel,  the  grave  old  man.”  (Chwol- 
sohn,  Ssabier  und  Ssabismus,  vol.  ii.  p. 
39.) 


Chap.  VII. 


ZIK-BANIT. 


135 


an  idea  which  may  have  given  rise  to  the  Hebrew  name  of  the 
planet  Jupiter,  viz.  Sedek,  “justitia.”  Bel-Merodach  was 
worshipped  in  the  early  Chaldsean  kingdom,  as  appears  from 
the  Tel-Sifr  tablets.  He  was  probably  from  a very  remote  time 
the  tutelary  god  of  the  city  of  Babylon ; 8 and  hence,  as  that 
city  grew  into  importance,  the  worship  of  Merodach  became 
more  prominent.  The  Assyrian  monarchs  always  especially 
associate  Babylon  with  this  god;  and  in  the  later  Babylonian 
empire  he  becomes  by  far  the  chief  object  of  worship.  It  is  his 
temple  which  Herodotus  describes  so  elaborately,9  and  his 
image,  which,  according  to  the  Apocryphal  Daniel,  the  Baby- 
lonians worshipped  with  so  much  devotion.10  Nebuchadnezzar 
calls  him  “ the  king  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,”  “ the  great 
lord,”  “ the  senior  of  the  gods,”  “ the  most  ancient,”  “ the  sup- 
porter of  sovereignty,”  “ the  layer-up  of  treasures,”  &c.,  and 
ascribes  to  him  all  his  glory  and  successes. 

We  have  no  means  of  determining  which  among  the  em- 
blems of  the  gods  is  to  be  assigned  to  Bel-Merodach ; 
nor  is  there  any  sculptured  form  which  can  be 
certainly  attached  to  him.  According  to  Diodorus 
the  great  statue  of  Bel-Merodach  at  Babylon  was 
a figure  “ standing  and  walking .” 1 Such  a form  ap- 
pears more  often  than  any  other  upon  the  cylin- 
ders of  the  Babylonians ; and  it  is  perhaps  allowable 
to  conjecture  that  it  may  represent  this  favourite 
deity. 


ZIR-BANIT. 


Bel-Merodach  has  a wife,  with  whom  he  is  commonly  asso- 
ciated, called  Zir-banit.  She  had  a temple  at  Babylon,  probably 
attached  to  her  husband’s,  and  is  perhaps  the  Babylonian  Juno 
(Hera)  of  Diodorus.2  The  essential  element  of  her  name  seems 


8  The  Babylonian  kings  are  fond  of 
including  the  word  Merodach  in  their 
names.  As  early  as  b.c.  1110,  we  find 
a Merodach-iddin-akki,  the  son  of  an 
Irba-Merodach.  Afterwards  we  have 

Merodach-Baladan,  Mesessimordachus, 

Evil-Merodach.  &c. 


9 Herod,  i.  181-183.  Compare  Diod. 
Sic.  ii.  9. 

10  Apoc.  Dan.  xiv.  2. 

1 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  9,  § 5:  Ti»  /xev  rod 
A Lbs  &7<xA/ia  earriitbs  7? v ko/X  SiaySe- 
firj  k 6 s.  2 Ibid.  ii.  9,  § 6. 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


136 


to  be  Zir,  which  is  an  old  Hamitic  root,  of  uncertain  meaning, 
while  the  accompanying  banit  is  a descriptive  epithet,  which 
may  be  rendered  by  44  genetrix.”  Zir-banit  was  probably  the 
goddess  whose  worship  the  Babylonian  settlers  carried  to  Samaria, 
and  who  is  called  Succoth-benoth  in  Scripture.3 


NEE, GAL. 

Nergal,  the  planet  Mars,  whose  name  was  continued  to  a late 
date,  under  the  form  of  Nerig  in  the  astronomical  system  of  the 
Mendseans,  is  a god  whose  character  and  attributes  are  tolerably 
clear  and  definite.  His  name  is  evidently  compounded  of  the 
two  Hamitic  roots  nir,  44  a man,”  and  gula , 44  great ;”  so  that  he 
is  44  the  great  man,”  or  44  the  great  hero.”  He  is  the  special  god 
of  war  and  of  hunting,  more  particularly  of  the  latter.  His 
titles  are  44  the  king  of  battle,”  44  the  champion  of  the  gods,” 
44  the  storm  ruler,”  44  the  strong  begetter,”  44  the  tutelar  god  of 
Babylonia,”  and  44  the  god  of  the  chace.”  He  is  usually  coupled 
with  Nin,  who  likewise  presides  over  battles  and  over  hunting ; 
but  while  Nin  is  at  least  his  equal  in  the  former  sphere,  Nergal 
has  a decided  pre-eminence  in  the  latter. 

We  haye  no  distinct  evidence  that  Nergal  was  worshipped  in 
the  primitive  times.  He  is  first  mentioned  by  some  of  the  early 
Assyrian  kings,4  who  regard  him  as  their  ancestor.  It  has,  how- 
ever, been  conjectured  that,  like  Bil-Nipru,  he  represented  the 
deified  hero,  Nimrod,5  who  may  have  been  worshipped  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  Chaldsea  under  different  titles. 

The  city  peculiarly  dedicated  to  Nergal  was  Cutha  or  Tiggaba, 
which  is  constantly  called  his  city  in  the  inscriptions.  He  was 
worshipped  also  at  Tarbisa,  near  Nineveh,  but  in  Tiggaba  he  was 
said  to  44  live,”  and  his  shrine  there  was  one  of  great  celebrity. 
Hence  44  the  men  of  Cuth,”  when  transported  to  Samaria  by  the 
Assyrians,  naturally  enough  44  made  Nergal  their  god,”  carrying 
his  worship  with  them  into  their  new  country.6 


3 Succoth,  “ tents,”  is  probably  a mis- 
translation of  Zir,  or  Zirat,  which  was 
confounded  with  zarat , a word  having 
that  meaning. 

4 As  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  about  b.c. 


1100,  and  Asshur-izir-pal,  about  B.c.  850. 

5 Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  632. 

6 See  2 Kings  xvii.  30. 


Chap.  VII.  NEEGAL,  THE  MAN-LION. 


137 


Nergal’s  emblem,  the  Man-Lion. 


138 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


It  is  probable  that  Nergal’s  symbol  was  the  Man-Lion.  Nir 
is  sometimes  used  in  the  inscriptions  in  the  meaning  of  “ lion 
and  the  Semitic  name  for  the  god  himself  is  “ Aria  ” — the 
ordinary  term  for  the  king  of  beasts  both  in  Hebrew  and  in 
Syriac.  Perhaps  we  have  here  the  true  derivation  of  the  Greek 
name  for  the  god  of  war,  Ares  (5,A pr]<;),7  which  has  long  puzzled 
classical  scholars.  The  lion  would  symbolize  both  the  fighting 
and  the  hunting  propensities  of  the  god,  for  he  not  only  engages 
in  combats  upon  occasions,  but  often  chases  his  prey  and  runs  it 
down  like  a hunter.  Again,  if  Nergal  is  the  Man-Lion,  his  asso- 
ciation in  the  buildings  with  the  Man-Bull,  would  be  exactly 
parallel  with  the  conjunction,  which  we  so  constantly  find, 
between  him  and  Nin  in  the  inscriptions. 

Nergal  had  a wife,  called  Laz,  of  whom,  however,  nothing  is 
known  beyond  her  name.  It  is  uncertain  which  among  the 
emblems  of  the  gods  appertains  to  him. 

ISHTAR  or  NANA. 

Ishtar  or  Nana  is  the  planetary  Venus,  and  in  general  features 
corresponds  with  the  classical  goddess.  Her  name  Ishtar  is  that 
by  which  she  was  known  in  Assyria ; and  the  same  term  pre- 
vailed with  slight  modifications  among  the  Semitic  races  gene- 
rally. The  Phoenician  form  was  Astarte,  the  Hebrew  Ashtoreth  ; 8 
the  later  Mendsean  form  was  Ashtar.  In  Babylonia  the  goddess 
was  known  as  Nana,  which  seems  to  be  the  Nanaea  of  the  second 
book  of  Maccabees,9  and  the  Nani  of  the  modern  Syrians.10  No 
satisfactory  account  can  at  present  be  given  of  the  etymology  of 
either  name ; for  the  proposal  to  connect  Ishtar  with  the  Greek 

7 The  Sabaeans  of  Harran,  who  used 
generally  the  Babylonian  appellations  of 
the  gods,  applied  the  name  of  Ares  to 
the  third  day  of  the  week — the  “ dies 
Martis  ” of  the  Romans.  (Chwolsohn, 

Ssabier  und  Ssabismus,  yol.  ii.  p.  22.) 

8 2 Kings  xi.  5 and  33.  Ashtoreth 

(rnh£jy),  11  the  goddess  of  the  Si- 

donians”  (’AardpTr]  of  LXX.),  is 

to  be  distinguished  from  Ashtaroth 
the  plural  form  (rods 


’ Acrraprous  of  LXX.),  which  seems  to 
be  a generic  word  for  “ false  goddesses.” 

9 2 Mac.  i.  13-15. 

10  The  name  of  Nani  is  given  by  the 
Syrian  lexicographer  Bar-Bahlul  as  one 
of  the  fifteen  titles  applied  to  the  planet 
Venus  by  the  Arabs.  The  word  is  also 
found  further  east,  as  in  Affghanistan, 
where  many  places  are  called  Bibi  Nani , 
after  “ the  lady  Venus.”  The  same 
origin  may  be  assigned  to  the  Greek 
“ ’Ndvvtov,”  the  name  of  a courtesan. 
(Athen.  xiii.  p.  576.) 


Chap.  VII. 


ISHTAR  OR  NANA. 


139 


ao-rr/p  (Zend  starann,  Sanscrit  tara,  English  star,  Latin  stella), 
though  it  has  great  names  in  its  favour,1  is  not  worthy  of  much 
attention. 

Ishtar’s  aphrodisiac  character,  though  it  can  scarcely  he 
doubted,  does  not  appear  very  clearly  in  the  inscriptions.  She 
is  “ the  goddess  who  rejoices  mankind,”  and  her  most  common 
epithet  is  “ Asurah,”  “the  fortunate”  or  “the  happy.”2  But 
otherwise  her  epithets  are  vague  and  general,  insomuch  that  she 
is  often  scarcely  distinguishable  from  Beltis.  She  is  called  " the 
mistress  of  heaven  and  earth,”  “ the  great  goddess,”  “ the  queen 
of  all  the  gods and  again  “ the  goddess  of  war  and  battle,” 
“ the  queen  of  victory,”  “ she  who  arranges  battles,”  and  “ she 
who  defends  from  attacks.”  She  is  also  represented  in  the  in- 
scriptions of  one  king  as  the  goddess  of  the  chace 3 

The  worship  of  Ishtar  was  wide-spread,  and  her  shrines  were 
numerous.  She  is  often  called  “the  queen  of  Babylon,”  and 
must  certainly  have  had  a temple  in  that  city.4  She 
had  also  temples  at  Asshur  (Kileh-Sherghat),  at  Arbela, 
and  at  Nineveh.  It  may  be  suspected  that  her  symbol 
was  the  naked  female  form,  which  is  not  uncommon 
upon  the  cylinders.  She  may  also  be  represented  by 
the  rude  images  in  baked  clay  so  common  throughout 
the  Mesopotamian  ruins,  which  are  generally  regarded  as  images 
of  Mylitta.5 

Ishtar  is  sometimes  coupled  with  Nebo  in  such  a way  as  to 
suggest  the  notion  that  she  was  his  wife.  This,  however,  can 
hardly  have  been  her  real  position  in  the  mythology,  since  Nebo 
had,  as  will  presently  appear,  another  wife,  Varamit,  whom  there 


1 As  Gesenius,  Movers,  and  Fiirst. 
Bunsen’s  argument  against  an  Iranian 
derivation  of  the  name  of  a Semitic 
god  ( Egypt's  Place,  vol.  iv.  p.  349,  E.  T.) 
is  perfectly  sound;  but  his  suggestion 
that  the  true  etymology  of  Ashtoreth 
is  has-toreth,  “the  seat  of  the  cow,” 
seems  scarcely  entitled  to  acceptance. 

2 Compare  the  Roman  notion  by 

which  the  best  throw  on  the  dice  was 
called  “Venus,”  or  “ jactus  Venereus.” 

(Plaut.  Asin.  v.  ii.  55 ; Cic.  de  Div.  ii. 

59,  &c.) 


3 This  is  her  character  in  the  records 
of  Asshur-bani-pal,  the  son  and  suc- 
cessor of  Esar-haddon. 

4 Nebuchadnezzar  speaks  of  having 
“made  the  way  of  Nana ” in  Babylon, 
by  which  he  probably  means  a way  or 
road  to  her  temple.  (See  the  Standard 
Inscription,  as  given  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  586.) 

5 Loftus,  Chaldcea  and,  Susiana , ch. 
xviii.  p.  214;  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its 
Remains , vol.  ii.  ch.  7. 


140 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


is  no  reason  to  believe  identical  with  Ishtar.  It  is  most  pro- 
bable that  the  conjunction  is  casual 
and  accidental,  being  due  to  special 
and  temporary  causes.6 

NEBO. 

The  last  of  the  five  planetary  gods 
is  Nebo,  who  undoubtedly  represents 
the  planet  Mercury.  His  name  is 
the  same,  or  nearly  so,  both  in  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian;7  and  we  may 
perhaps  assign  it  a Semitic  deriva- 
ciay-images  of  ishtar.  tion,  from  the  root  nibbah , K2J,  “to 

prophesy.”  It  is  his  special  function  to  preside  over  knowledge 
and  learning.  He  is  called  “ the  god  who  possesses  intelligence,” 
“ he  who  hears  from  afar,”  “ he  who  teaches,”  or  “ he  who 
teaches  and  instructs.”  In  this  point  of  view,  he  of  course 
approximates  to  Hoa,  whose  son  he  is  called  in  some  inscriptions, 
and  to  whom  he  bears  a general  resemblance.  Like  Hoa,  he  is 
symbolized  by  the  simple  wedge  or  arrowhead,8  the  primary  and 
essential  element  of  cuneiform  writing,  to  mark  his  joint  presi- 
dency with  that  god  over  writing  and  literature.  At  the  same 
time  Nebo  has,  like  so  many  of  the  Chaldsean  gods,  a number 
of  general  titles,  implying  divine  power,  which,  if  they  had 
belonged  to  him  only,  would  have  seemed  to  prove  him  the 
supreme  deity.  He  is  “ the  Lord  of  lords,  who  has  no  equal  in 
power,”  “the  supreme  chief,”  “the  sustainer,”  “the  supporter,” 


6 The  conjunction  appears  to  belong 
only  to  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Sir  H.  Rawlinson  observes  that,  as 
Nebuchadnezzar  never  once  mentions 
Varamit,  the  true  wife  of  Nebo,  in  his 
inscriptions,  it  is  evident  she  was  out 
of  favour  with  him,  and  that  therefore 
Nana  “may  have  been  thrust  tem- 
porarily into  her  place.”  (See  the  author’s 
Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  637.) 

7 The  Babylonian  form  is  Nabiu,  the 
Assyrian  Nabu.  The  word  forms  the 

initial  element  in  Nabonassar,  Nabopo- 
lassar,  Nebuchadnezzar,  Nabonidus  or 


Labynetus,  Nebuzaradan,  and  possibly 
in  Laborosoarchod. 

8  In  the  great  temple  of  Nebo  at  Bor- 
sippa  there  is  an  interior  chamber, 
which  seems  to  have  been  a chapel  or 
oratory,  all  the  bricks  of  which  are 
found  to  be  stamped — in  addition  to  the 
ordinary  legend  of  Nebuchadnezzar — 
with  the  figure  of  a wedge  or  arrow- 
head. It  is  probably  with  reference  to 
this  symbol  that  Nebo  received  the 
name  of  Tir , which  is  at  once  “ an 
arrow,”  and  the  name  of  the  planet 
Mercury  in  ancient  Persian. 


Chap.  YII. 


NEBO. 


141 


“the  ever  ready,”  “the  guardian  over  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,”  “ the  lord  of  the  con- 
stellations,” “ the  holder  ol 
the  sceptre  of  power,”  “ he 
who  grants  to  kings  the 
sceptre  of  royalty  for  the 
governance  of  their  people.” 

It  is  chiefly  by  his  omission 
from  many  lists,  and  his 
humble  place  when  he  is 
mentioned  together  with  the 
really  great  gods,  that  we 
know  he  was  mythologically 
a deity  of  no  very  great 
eminence. 

There  is  nothing  to  prove 
the  early  worship  of  Nebo. 

His  name  does  not  appear  as 
an  element  in  any  royal  ap- 
pellation belonging  to  the 
Chaldsean  series.  Nor  is  there 
any  reference  to  him  in  the 
records  of  the  primeval  times. 

Still,  as  he  is  probably  of 
Babylonian  rather  than  As- 
syrian origin,9  and  as  an 
Assyrian  king  is  named  after 
him  in  the  twelfth  century 
B.c.,1  we  may  assume  that  he 
was  not  unknown  to  the  pri- 
mitive people  of  Chaldsea, 
though  at  present  their  re-  Nebo  lfrom  a statue  in  the  British  Museum), 
mains  have  furnished  us  with  no  mention  of  him.  In  later 


9 "When  Nebo  first  appears  in  Assyria, 
it  is  as  a foreign  god,  whose  worship 
is  brought  thither  from  Babylonia.  His 
worship  was  neyer  common  in  the  more 
northern  country. 


1 This  is  the  monarch  whose  name  is 
read  as  Mutaggil-Nebu,  the  grandfather 
of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  who  is  mentioned 
in  that  monarch’s  great  inscription  (p. 
60). 


142 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


ages  the  chief  seat  of  his  worship  was  Borsippa,  where  the  great 
and  famous  temple,  known  at  present  as  the  Birs-Nimrud,  was 
dedicated  to  his  honour.  He  had  also  a shrine  at  Calah  (Nim- 
rud),  whence  were  procured  the  statues  representing  him  which 
are  now  in  the  British  Museum.  He  was  in  special  favour 
with  the  kings  of  the  great  Babylonian  empire,  who  were  mostly 
named  after  him  and  viewed  him  as  presiding  over  their  house. 
His  symbol  has  not  yet  been  recognised. 

The  wife  of  Nebo,  as  already  observed,  was  Varamit  or 
Urmit — a word  which  perhaps  means  “ exalted,”  from  the  root 
Dn,  " to  be  lifted  up.”  No  special  attributes  are  ascribed  to 
this  goddess,  who  merely  accompanies  her  husband  in  most  of 
the  places  where  he  is  mentioned  by  name. 

Such,  then,  seem  to  have  been  the  chief  gods  worshipped  by 
the  early  Chaldaeans.  It  would  be  an  endless  as  well  as  an 
unprofitable  task  to  give  an  account  of  the  inferior  deities. 
Their  name  is  “ Legion ; ” and  they  are,  for  the  most  part,  too 
vague  and  shadowy  for  effective  description.  A vast  number 
are  merely  local ; and  it  may  be  suspected  that  where  this  is 
the  case  the  great  gods  of  the  Pantheon  come  before  us  re- 
peatedly, disguised  under  rustic  titles.  We  have,  moreover,  no 
clue  at  present  to  this  labyrinth,  on  which,  even  with  greater 
knowledge,  it  would  perhaps  be  best  for  us  to  forbear  to  enter ; 
since  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  that  we  should  obtain  any 
really  valuable  results  from  its  exploration. 

A few  words,  however,  may  be  added  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Chaldsean  cosmogony.  Although  the  only  knowledge  that  we 
possess  on  this  point  is  derived  from  Berosus,  and  therefore  we 
cannot  be  sure  that  we  have  really  the  belief  of  the  ancient 
people,  yet,  judging  from  internal  evidence  of  character,  we 
may  safely  pronounce  Berosus’  account  not  only  archaic,  but  in 
its  groundwork  and  essence  a primeval  tradition,  more  ancient 
probably  than  most  of  the  gods  whom  we  have  been  considering. 

“ In  the  beginning,”  says  this  ancient  legend,  “ all  was  dark- 
ness and  water,  and  therein  were  generated  monstrous  animals 
of  strange  and  peculiar  forms.  There  were  men  with  two  wings, 
and  some  even  with  four,  and  with  two  faces ; and  others  with 


Chap,  VII. 


COSMOGONY. 


143 


two  heads,  a man’s  and  a woman’s,  on  one  body ; and  there  were 
men  with  the  heads  and  the  horns  of  goats,  and  men  with  hoofs 
like  horses,  and  some  with  the  upper  parts  of  a man  joined  to 
the  lower  parts  of  a horse,  like  centaurs ; and  there  were  bulls 
with  human  heads,  dogs  with  four  bodies  and  with  fishes’  tails, 
men  and  horses  with  dogs’  heads,  creatures  with  the  heads  and 
bodies  of  horses,  but  with  the  tails  of  fish,  and  other  animals 
mixing  the  forms  of  various  beasts.  Moreover,  there  were  mon- 
strous fish  and  reptiles  and  serpents,  and  divers  other  creatures, 
which  had  borrowed  something  from  each  other’s  shapes ; of  all 
which  the  likenesses  are  still  preserved  in  the  temple  of  Belus. 
A woman  ruleth  them  all,  by  name  Omorka,  which  is  in  Chaldee 
Thalatth,  and  in  Greek  Thalassa  (or  ‘the  sea’).  Then  Belus 
appeared,  and  split  the  woman  in  twain ; and  of  the  one  half  of 
her  he  made  the  heaven,  and  of  the  other  half  the  earth ; and 
the  beasts  that  were  in  her  he  caused  to  perish.  And  he  split 
the  darkness,  and  divided  the  heaven  and  the  earth  asunder, 
and  put  the  world  in  order ; and  the  animals  that  could  not  bear 
the  light  perished.  Belus,  upon  this,  seeing  that  the  earth  was 
desolate,  yet  teeming  with  productive  power,  commanded  one 
of  the  gods  to  cut  off  his  head,2  and  to  mix  the  blood  which 
flowed  forth  with  earth,  and  form  men  therewith,  and  beasts 
that  could  bear  the  light.  So  man  was  made,  and  was  intelli- 
gent, being  a partaker  of  the  divine  wisdom.3  Likewise  Belus 
made  the  stars,  and  the  sun  and  moon,  and  the  five  planets.” 

It  has  been  generally  seen  that  this  cosmogony  bears  a re- 
markable resemblance  to  the  history  of  Creation  contained  in 
the  opening  chapters  of  the  book  of  Genesis.  Some  have  gone 
so  far  as  to  argue  that  the  Mosaic  account  was  derived  from  it.4 


2  There  is  a confusion  here  in  Poly- 
histor  both  as  reported  by  Eusebius 
( Chron . Can.  i.  2,  pp.  11,  12)  and  by 
Syncellus  ( Chronograph . vol.  i.  p.  53), 
which  can  scarcely  have  belonged  to  his 
authority,  Berosus.  Belus  is  first  made 
to  cut  off  his  own  head,  and  “ the  other 
gods  ” are  said  to  have  mixed  his  blood 
with  earth  and  formed  man ; but  after- 
wards the  account  contained  in  the  text 

is  given.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  first 

account  is  an  interpolation  in  the  legend. 


3 I have  placed  this  phrase  a little 
out  of  its  order.  It  occurs  in  the  passage, 
which  appears  to  me  interpolated,  and 
which  is  perhaps  rather  an  explanation 
which  Berosus  gave  of  the  legend  than 
part  of  the  legend  itself.  However, 
Berosus  has  no  doubt  here  explained  the 
legend  rightly. 

4 So  Niebuhr  says  {Lectures  on  Ancient 
History , vol.  i.  p.  16,  E.T.),  but  without 
mentioning  to  what  writers  he  alludes. 


144 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Others,  who  reject  this  notion,  suggest  that  a certain  “ old 
Chaldee  tradition”  was  “the  basis  of  them  both.”5  If  we 
drop  out  the  word  “ Chaldee  ” from  this  statement,  it  may  be 
regarded  as  fairly  expressing  the  truth.  The  Babylonian  legend 
embodies  a primeval  tradition,  common  to  all  mankind,  of  which 
an  inspired  author  has  given  us  the  true  groundwork  in  the  first 
and  second  chapters  of  Genesis.  What  is  especially  remarkable 
is  the  fidelity,  comparatively  speaking,  with  which  the  Babylonian 
legend  reports  the  facts.  While  the  whole  tone  and  spirit  of  the 
two  accounts,6  and  even  the  point  of  view  from  which  they  are 
taken,  differ,7  the  general  outline  of  the  narrative  in  each  is 
nearly  the  same.  In  both  we  have  the  earth  at  first  “ without 
form  and  void,”  and  “ darkness  upon  the  face  of  the  deep.”  In 
both  the  first  step  taken  towards  creation  is  the  separation  of 
the  mixed  mass,  and  the  formation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
as  the  consequence  of  such  separation.  In  both  we  have  light 
mentioned  before  the  creation  of  the  sun  and  moon ; in  both  we 
have  the  existence  of  animals  before  man ; and  in  both  we  have 
a divine  element  infused  into  man  at  his  birth,  and  his  formation 
“ from  the  dust  of  the  ground.”  The  only  points  in  which  the 
narratives  can  be  said  to  be  at  variance  are  points  of  order.  The 
Babylonians  apparently  made  the  formation  of  man  and  of  the 
animals  which  at  present  inhabit  the  earth  simultaneous,  and 
placed  the  creation  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets  after,  instead 
of  before,  that  of  men  and  animals.  In  other  respects  the  Baby- 
lonian narrative  either  adds  to  the  Mosaic  account,  as  in  its 
description  of  the  monsters  and  their  destruction,  or  clothes  in 
mythic  language,  that  could  never  have  been  understood  literally, 
the  truth  which  in  Scripture  is  put  forth  with  severe  simplicity. 
The  cleaving  of  the  woman  Thalatth  in  twain,  and  the  beheading 
of  Belus,  are  embellishments  of  this  latter  character;  they  are 


5 Bunsen,  Egypt’s  Place  in  Universal 
History , vol.  iv.  p.  365,  E.  T. 

6 The  Chaldee  narrative  is  extrava- 

gant and  grotesque;  the  Mosaical  is 
miraculous,  as  a true  account  of  creation 
must  be ; but  it  is  without  unnecessary 
marvels,  and  its  tone  is  sublime  and 
solemn. 


7  In  Genesis  the  point  of  view  is  the 
divine — “ In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth,  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of 
the  waters.”  In  the  Chaldee  legend  the 
point  of  view  is  the  physical  and  mun- 
dane, God  being  only  brought  in  after  a 
while  as  taking  a<  certain  part  in  creation. 


Chai\  VII. 


TRADITION  OF  THE  FLOOD. 


145 


plainly  and  evidently  mythological ; nor  can  we  suppose  them 
to  have  been  at  any  time  regarded  as  facts.  The  existence  of 
the  monsters,  on  the  other  hand,  may  well  have  been  an  actual 
belief.  All  men  are  prone  to  believe  in  such  marvels ; and  it 
is  quite  possible,  as  Niebuhr  supposes,8  that  some  discoveries  of 
the  remains  of  mammoths  and  other  monstrous  forms  embedded 
in  the  crust  of  the  earth,  may  have  given  definiteness  and  promi- 
nency to  the  Chaldsean  notions  on  this  subject. 

Besides  their  correct  notions  on  the  subject  of  creation,  the 
primitive  Clialdseans  seem  also  to  have  been  aware  of  the  general 
destruction  of  mankind,  on  account  of  their  wickedness,9  by  a 
Flood ; and  of  the  rebellious  attempt  which  was  made  soon  after 
the  Flood  to  concentrate  themselves  in  one  place,  instead  of 
obeying  the  command  to  “ replenish  the  earth  ” 10 — an  attempt 
which  was  thwarted  by  means  of  the  confusion  of  their  speech. 
The  Chaldsean  legends  embodying  these  primitive  traditions 
were  as  follows : — 

“ God  appeared  to  Xisuthrus  (Noah)  in  a dream,  and  warned 
him  that  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month  Dsesius,  mankind 
would  be  destroyed  by  a deluge.  He  bade  him  bury  in  Sippara, 
the  City  of  the  Sun,  the  extant  writings,  first  and  last ; and 
build  a ship,  and  enter  therein  with  his  family  and  his  close 
friends ; and  furnish  it  with  meat  and  drink ; and  place  on 
board  winged  fowl,  and  four-footed  beasts  of  the  earth  ; and 
when  all  was  ready,  set  sail.  Xisuthrus  asked  £ Whither  he  was 
to  sail  ? 7 and  was  told,  ‘ To  the  gods,  with  a prayer  that  it  might 
fare  well  with  mankind.’  Then  Xisuthrus  was  not  disobedient 
to  the  vision,  but  built  a ship  five  furlongs  (3125  feet)  in  length, 
and  two  furlongs  (1250  feet)  in  breadth;  and  collected  all  that 
had  been  commanded  him,  and  put  his  wife  and  children  and 
close  friends  on  board.  The  flood  came;  and  as  soon  as  it 
ceased,  Xisuthrus  let  loose  some  birds,  which,  finding  neither 
food  nor  a place  where  they  could  rest,  came  back  to  the  ark. 


8 Lectures  on  Ancient  History , vol.  i. 
p.  17,  E.T. 

9 This  is  not  expressly  stated  in  the 
legend ; hut  the  divine  warning  to 

VOL.  I. 


Xisuthrus,  and  the  stress  laid  by  Xisu- 
thrus in  his  last  words  on  the  worship  of 
God,  seem  to  imply  such  a belief. 

10  Gen.  ix.  1. 


L 


146 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


After  some  days  lie  again  sent  out  the  birds,1  which  again  re- 
turned to  the  ark,  but  with  feet  covered  with  mud.  Sent  out  a 
third  time,  the  birds  returned  no  more,  and  Xisuthrus  knew  that 
land  had  reappeared:  so  he  removed  some  of  the  covering  of 
the  ark,  and  looked,  and  behold ! the  vessel  had  grounded  on  a 
mountain.  Then  Xisuthrus  went  forth  with  his  wife  and  his 
daughter,  and  his  pilot,2  and  fell  down  and  worshipped  the 
earth,3  and  built  an  altar,  and  offered  sacrifice  to  the  gods ; after 
which  he  disappeared  from  sight,  together  with  those  who  had 
accompanied  him.  They  who  had  remained  in  the  ark  and  not 
gone  forth  with  Xisuthrus,  now  left  it  and  searched  for  him,  and 
shouted  out  his  name ; but  Xisuthrus  was  not  seen  any  more. 
Only  his  voice  answered  them  out  of  the  air,  saying,  ‘Worship 
God ; for  because  I worshipped  God,  am  I gone  to  dwell  with 
the  gods;  and  they  who  were  with  me  have  shared  the  same 
honour.’  And  he  bade  them  return  to  Babylon,  and  recover 
the  writings  buried  at  Sippara,  and  make  them  known  among 
men ; and  he  told  them  that  the  land  in  which  they  then  were 
was  Armenia.  So  they,  when  they  had  heard  all,  sacrificed  to 
the  gods  and  went  their  way  on  foot  to  Babylon,  and,  having 
reached  it,  recovered  the  buried  writings  from  Sippara,  and 
built  many  cities  and  temples,  and  restored  Babylon.  Some 
portion  of  the  ark  still  continues  in  Armenia,  in  the  Gordiaean 
(Kurdish)  Mountains ; and  persons  scrape  off  the  bitumen  from 
it  to  bring  away,  and  this  they  use  as  a remedy  to  avert  mis- 
fortunes.” 4 

“ The  earth  was  still  of  one  language,  when  the  primitive  men, 
who  were  proud  of  their  strength  and  stature,  and  despised  the 
gods  as  their  inferiors,  erected  a tower  of  vast  height,  in  order 
that  they  might  mount  to  heaven.  And  the  tower  was  now  near 
to  heaven,  when  the  gods  (or  God)  caused  the  winds  to  blow 
and  overturned  the  structure  upon  the  men,  and  made  them 


1 So  in  Syncellus  ( Chronograph . p.  54) ; 
t but  in  the  Armenian  Eusebius  we  read 

“ other  birds  ” ( Chron.  Can.  i.  3 j p.  15 ). 

2 The  Armenian  translator  turns  the 

pilot  (nvf$epv’f]TT)v)  into  the  “ architect 

of  the  ship.”  M.  Bunsen  follows  him 
(Egypt,  &c.,  vol.  iv.  p.  371). 


3 This  is  plainly  stated  both  in  the 
Greek  and  in  the  Armenian.  M.  Bun- 
sen has  “ threw  himself  upon  the  earth 
and  prayed”  (1.  s.  c.). 

4 I have  inverted  the  order  of  this 
clause  and  the  preceding  one,  to  keep 
the  connexion  more  clear. 


Chap.  VII. 


TRADITION  OF  THE  TOWER. 


147 


speak  with  divers  tongues;  wherefore  the  city  was  called 
Babylon.” 5 

Here  again  we  have  a harmony  with  Scripture  of  the  most 
remarkable  kind — a harmony  not  confined  to  the  main  facts,  but 
reaching  even  to  the  minuter  points,  and  one  which  is  altogether 
most  curious  and  interesting.  The  Babylonians  have  not  only, 
in  common  with  the  great  majority  of  nations,  handed  down 
from  age  to  age  the  general  tradition  of  the  Flood,  but  they 
are  acquainted  with  most  of  the  particulars  of  the  occurrence. 
They  know  of  the  divine  warning  to  a single  man,6  the  direction 
to  construct  a huge  ship  or  ark,7  the  command  to  take  into  it  a 
chosen  few  of  mankind  only,8  and  to  devote  the  chief  space  to 
winged  fowl  and  four-footed  beasts  of  the  earth.9  They  are 
aware  of  the  tentative  sending  out  of  birds  from  it,10  and  of  their 
returning  twice,11  but  when  sent  out  a third  time  returning  no 
more.12  They  know  of  the  egress  from  the  ark  by  removal  of 
some  of  its  covering,13  and  of  the  altar  built  and  the  sacrifice 
offered  immediately  afterwards.14  They  know  that  the  ark  rested 
in  Armenia ; 15  that  those  who  escaped  by  means  of  it,  or  their 
descendants,  journeyed  towards  Babylon;1  that  there  a tower 
was  begun,  but  not  completed,  the  building  being  stopped  by 
divine  interposition  and  a miraculous  confusion  of  tongues.2  As 
before,  they  are  not  content  with  the  plain  truth,  but  must 
amplify  and  embellish  it.  The  size  of  the  ark  is  exaggerated  to 
an  absurdity,3  and  its  proportions  are  misrepresented  in  such  a 
way  as  to  outrage  all  the  principles  of  naval  architecture.4  The 


5 Two  separate  versions  of  this  legend 
have  descended  to  us.  They  come  re- 
spectively from  Abydenus  and  Poly- 
histor.  We  have  the  words  of  the 
authors  in  Euseb.  Proep.  Ev.  ix.  14,  15, 
and  Syncell.  Chronograph,  vol.  i.  p.  81. 
We  have  also  a translation  of  their 
words  in  the  Armenian  Eusebius  ( Chron . 

Can.  i.  4 and  8).  6 Gen.  vi.  13. 

7 lb.  14-16.  8 lb.  verse  18. 

9 lb.  verse  20.  10  lb.  viii.  7. 

11  lb.  9-11.  12  lb.  verse  12. 

13  lb.  verse  13 : “ Noah  r emoted  the 

covering  of  the  ark , and  looked,  and, 

behold,  the  face  of  the  earth  was  dry.” 

14  lb.  viii.  20.  “And  Noah  budded 


an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  and  took  of 
every  clean  beast,  and  of  every  clean 
fowl,  and  offered  burnt  offerings  upon 
the  altar.” 

15  lb.  verse  8 : “ And  the  ark  rested 
. . . upon  the  mountains  of  Ararat.” 
Ararat  is  the  usual  word  for  Armenia 
in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions. 

1 lb.  xi.  2.  2 lb.  4-9. 

3 The  ark  is  made  more  than  half  a 
mile  long,  whereas  it  was  really  only  300 
cubits,  which  is  at  the  utmost  600  feet, 
or  less  than  an  eighth  of  a mile. 

4 According  to  some  writers,  the 
principles  of  naval  architecture  were 
not  concerned  in  the  building  of  the  ark, 

L 2 


1 48 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


translation  of  Xisuthrus,  liis  wife,  his  daughter,  and  his  pilot — a 
reminiscence  possibly  of  the  translation  of  Enoch — is  unfitly  as 
well  as  falsely  introduced  just  after  they  have  been  miraculously 
saved  from  destruction.  The  story  of  the  Tower  is  given  with 
less  departure  from  the  actual  truth.  The  building  is,  however, 
absurdly  represented  as  an  actual  attempt  to  scale  heaven;5 
and  a storm  of  wind  is  somewhat  unnecessarily  introduced  to 
destroy  the  Tower,  which  from  the  Scripture  narrative  seems  to 
have  been  left  standing.  It  is  also  especially  to  be  noticed  that 
in  the  Chaldsean  legends  the  whole  interest  is  made  narrow  and 
local.  The  Flood  appears  as  a circumstance  in  the  history  of 
Babylonia;  and  the  priestly  traditionists,  who  have  put  the 
legend  into  shape,,  are  chiefly  anxious  to  make  the  event  redound 
to  the  glory  of  their  sacred  books,  which  they  boast  to  have  been 
the  special  objects  of  divine  care,,  and  represent  as  a legacy  from 
the  antediluvian  ages.  The  general  interests  of  mankind  are 
nothing  to  the  Chaldsean  priests,,  who  see  in  the  story  of  the 
Tower  simply  a local  etymology,,  and  in  the  Deluge  an  event 
which  made  the  Babylonians  the  sole  possessors  of  primeval 
wisdom.6 


since  (as  they  say)  “ it  was  not  a ship, 
hut  a house”  (Kitto’s  Biblical  Cyclo- 
paedia, vol.  i.  p.  212);  But  would  “a 
floating  house,”  not  shaped  shipwise, 
have  been  safe  amid  the  winds  and 
currents  of  so  terrible  a crisis?  The 
Chaldaeans,  despite  the  absurd  propor- 
tions that  they  assign  it,  term  the  ark 
“ a ship,”  and  give  it  “ a pilot.” 

5 The  expression  in  Gen.  xi.  4,  “ a 
tower  whose  top  may  reach  unto  heaven,” 
is  a mere  common  form  of  Oriental 
hyperbole,  applied  to  any  great  height. 
(See  Deut.  i.  28,  where  the  spies  are 
said  to  have  brought  back  word  that 


the  cities  ©f  the  Canaanites  were  great, 
and  “walled  up  t©  heaven.”)  But  in 
the  Chaldee  version  of  the  story  we  are 
told  that  the  men  built  the  tower  “ in 
order  that  they  might  mount  to  heaven” 
( ottus  els  rbv  ovpavbv  ava.\ Quai). 

6 Baron  Bunsen  observes  with  reason 
— “The  general  contrast  between  the 
Biblical  and  the  Chaldee  version  is  very 
great.  "What  a purely  special  local 
character,  legendary  and  fabulous,  with- 
out ideas,  does  it  display  in  every  point 
which  it  does  not  hold  in  common  with 
the  Hebrew!”  ( Egypt's  Place , vol.  iv. 
p.  374,  E.  T.) 


Chap.  Till. 


HISTORY  AND  CHRONOLOGY. 


149 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

HISTORY  AND  CHRONOLOGY. 


“ The  beginning  of  his  kingdom  was  Babel,  and  Erech,  and  Accad,  and 
Calneh,  in  the  land  of  Shinar,” — Gen.  x.  10. 

The  establishment  of  a Cushite  kingdom  in  Lower  Babylonia 
dates  probably  from  (at  least)  the  twenty-fourth  or  twenty-fifth 
century  before  our  er$,.  Greek  traditions 1 assigned  to  the  city 
of  Babylon  an  antiquity  nearly  as  remote  ; and  the  native 
historian,  Berosus,  spoke  of  a Chaldee  an  dynasty  as  bearing  rule 
anterior  to  b.c.  2250.  Unfortunately  the  works  of  this  great 
authority  have  been  lost ; and  even  the  general  outline  of  his 
chronological  scheme,  whereof  some  writers  have  left  us  an 
account,2 * * * *  is  to  a certain  extent  imperfect ; so  that,  in  order  to 
obtain  a definite  chronology  for  the  early  times,  we  are  forced 
to  have  recourse,  in  some  degree,  to  conjecture.  Berosus  de- 
clared that  six  dynasties  had  reigned  in  Chaldsea  since  the  great 
flood  of  Xisuthrus,  or  Noah.  To  the  first,  which  consisted  of 
86  kings,  he  allowed  the  extravagant  period  of  34,080  years. 


1 Simplicius  relates  ( Comment . in 
Aristot.  de  Coelo , ii.  p.  123)  that  Calli- 
sthenes,  the  friend  of  Alexander,  sent  to 
Aristotle  from  Babylon  a series  of 
stellar  observations  made  in  that  city, 
which  reached  back  1903  years  before 
the  conquest  of  the  place  by  Alexander. 
(b.c.  331  + 1903  = b.c.  2234.)  Philo- 
Byblius,  according  to  Stephen  (ad  voc. 
BaPvXibv),  made  Babylon  to  have  been 
built  1002  years  before  Semiramis, 
whom  he  considered  contemporary  with, 

or  a little  anterior  to,  the  Trojan  War. 

( Fragm . Hist.  Grcec.  vol.  iii.  p.  563.) 

We  do  not  know  his  date  for  this  last 

event,  but  supposing  it  to  be  that  of 

the  Parian  Chronicle,  B.c.  1218,  we 

should  have  b.c.  2220  for  the  building 


of  the  city,  according  to  him.  Again, 
Berosus  and  Critodemus  are  said  by 
Pliny  (ZT.  JV.  vii.  56)  to  have  declared 
that  the  Babylonians  had  recorded  their 
stellar  observations  upon  bricks  for 
480  years  before  the  era  of  Phoroneus . 
At  least  the  passage  may  be  so  under- 
stood. (See  the  Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , 
vol.  xv.  p.  222.)  Now  the  date  of  Pho- 
roneus, according  to  Clinton  (77.  H.  vol.  i. 
p.  139),  is  b.c.  1753;  and  b.c.  1753  + 
480  gives  b.c.  2233. 

2 The  most  authentic  account  seems 
to  be  that  which  Eusebius  copied  from 
Polyhistor  ( Chronica , i.  4).  Syncellus  is 
far  less  to  be  trusted,  on  account  of  his 
elaborate  systematizing. 


i5o 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evechoiis,  the  founder  of  the  dynasty,  had  enjoyed  the  royal 
dignity  for  2400  years,  and  Chomasbelus,  his  son  and  successor, 
had  reigned  300  years  longer  than  his  father.  The  other  84 
monarchs  had  filled  up  the  remaining  space  of  28,980  years — 
their  reigns  thus  averaging  345  years  apiece.  It  is  clear  that 
these  numbers  are  unhistoric ; and  though  it  would  be  easy  to 
reduce  them  within  the  limits  of  credibility  by  arbitrary  suppo- 
sitions— as,  for  instance,  that  the  years  of  the  narrative  repre- 
sent months  or  days 3 — yet  it  may  reasonably  be  doubted  whether 
we  should  in  this  way  be  doing  any  service  to  the  cause  of 
historic  truth.  The  names  Evechoiis  and  Chomasbelus  seem 
mythic  rather  than  real ; they  represent  personages  in  the 
Babylonian  Pantheon,  and  can  scarcely  have  been  borne  by 
men.  It  is  likely  that  the  entire  series  of  names  partook  of  the 
same  character,  and  that,  if  we  possessed  them,  their  bearing 
would  be  found  to  be,  not  historic,  but  mythological.  We  may 
parallel  this  dynasty  of  Berosus,  where  he  reckons  kings’  reigns 
by  the  cyclical  periods  of  sosses  and  ners,  with  Manetho’s  dynasties 
of  Gods  and  Demigods  in  Egypt,  where  the  sum  of  the  years  is 
nearly  as  great.4 

It  is  necessary,  then,  to  discard  as  unhistorical  the  names  and 
numbers  assigned  to  his  first  dynasty  by  Berosus,  and  to  retain 
from  this  part  of  his  scheme  nothing  but  the  fact  which  he  lays 
down  of  an  ancient  Chaldsean  dynasty  having  ruled  in  Baby- 
lonia, prior  to  a conquest,  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  a 
second  dynasty,  termed  by  him  Median. 

The  scheme  of  Berosus  then,  setting  aside  his  numbers  for 
the  first  period,  is — according  to  the  best  extant  authorities5 
— as  follows : — 

Dynasty  I.  of  (?)  Chaldsean  kings (?)  years. 


„ 

II. 

„ 8 Median  ,, 

..  ..  234  (?) 

III. 

» 11  „ 

..  ..  48  (?) 

>> 

IV. 

„ 49  Chaldaean  „ 

..  ..  458 

3 This  view  is  taken  by  Mr.  William 
Palmer  in  his  Appendix  on  4 Babylonian 
and  Assyrian  Antiquities.’  (See  his 
Egyptian  Chronicles , vol.  ii.  pp.  942,  943.) 

4 Manetho  assigns  24,925  years  to 


the  reigns  of  Gods,  Demigods,  and 
Manes,  who  ruled  Egypt  before  Menes 
— the  first  historical  king.  (See  Fragm. 
Hist.  Gr.  vol.  ii.  p.  528.) 

5 Eusebius  and  Josephus. 


Chap.  YIII.  CHRONOLOGICAL  SCHEME  OF  BEROSUS. 


151 


Dynasty  V.  of  9 Arabian  kings 
„ VI-  45  (?)  „ 

Reign  of  Pul  

Dynasty  YII.  of  ( ? ) (?)  kings 
„ YIII.  „ 6 Chaldsean  „ 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  table  contains  certain  defects  and 
weaknesses,  which  greatly  impair  its  value,  and  prevent  us  from 
constructing  upon  it,  without  further  aid,  an  exact  scheme  of 
chronology.  Not  only  does  a doubt  attach  to  one  or  two  of  the 
number — to  the  years,  i.e.  of  the  second  and  third  dynasty 6 — 
but  in  two  cases  we  have  no  numbers  at  all  set  down  for  us,  and 
must  supply  them  from  conjecture,  or  from  extraneous  sources, 
before  we  can  make  the  scheme  available.  Fortunately  in  the 
more  important  case,  that  of  the  seventh  dynasty,  the  number 
of  years  can  be  exactly  supplied  without  any  difficulty.  The 
Canon  of  Ptolemy  covers,  in  fact,  the  whole  interval  between  the 
reign  of  Pul  and  the  close  of  the  Babylonian  Empire,  giving  for 
the  period  of  the  seventh  dynasty  13  reigns  in  122  years,  and 
for  that  of  the  eighth  5 reigns  in  87  years.  The  length  of  the 
reign  of  Pul  can,  however,  only  be  supplied  from  conjecture. 
As  it  is  not  an  unreasonable  supposition  that  he  may  have 
reigned  28  years,  and  as  this  number  harmonises  w'ell  with  the 
chronological  notices  of  the  monuments,  we  shall  venture  to 
assume  it,  and  thus  complete  the  scheme  which  the  fragments 
of  Berosus  leave  imperfect. 


245  years. 
526  „ 

? 

? ,! 
87  „ 


Berosus’  Chronological  Scheme  completed. 


Dynasty 

I.  of  ? Chaldsean  kings 

Y ears. 
? 

B.C. 

? 

B.C. 

2286 

II.  „ 8 Median  „ 

234 

2286 

2052 

III.  „ 11  ? 

48 

2052 

2004 

IV.  „ 49  Chaldsean  „ 

458 

2004 

1546 

V.  „ 9 Arabian  „ 

245 

1546 

1301 

if 

VI.  „ 45  ? 

526 

1301 

775 

Reign  of  Pnl  (Chaldsean  king)  .. 

28 

775 

747 

Dynasty 

VII.  of  13  ? kings 

122 

747 

625 

5? 

YIII.  „ 67  Babylonian  „ 

87 

625 

538 

8 The  48  years  of  the  third  dynasty 

margin  gives  234. 

are  not  in  the  text  of  the  Armenian 
Eusebius,  but  in  the  margin  only.  The 
text  of  the  same  authority  assigns  224 
years  to  the  second  dynasty,  but  the 


The  Canon  mentions  five  only  of 
these  kings,  omitting  one  (Laboroso- 
archod),  because  he  reigned  less  than  a 
full  year. 


152 


THE  FIKST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


This  scheme,  in  which  there  is  nothing  conjectural  except 
the  length  of  the  reign  of  Pul,  receives  very  remarkable  con- 
firmation from  the  Assyrian  monuments.  These  inform  us, 
first,  that  there  was  a conquest  of  Babylon  by  a Susianian 
monarch  1635  years  before  the  capture  of  Susa  by  Asshur-bani- 
pal,  the  son  of  Esarhaddon ; 8 and,  secondly,  that  there  was  a 
second  conquest  by  an  Assyrian  monarch  600  years  before  the 
occupation  of  Babylon  by  Esarhaddon’s  father,  Sennacherib. 
Now  Sennacherib’s  occupation  of  Babylon  was  in  b.c.  702;  and 
600  years  before  this  brings  us  to  B.c.  1302,  within  a year  of  the 
date  which  the  scheme  assigns  to  the  accession  of  the  seventh 
dynasty.  Susa  was  taken  by  Asshur-bani-pal  probably  in 
b.c.  651 ; and  1635  years  before  this  is  b.c.  2286,  or  the  exact 
year  marked  in  the  scheme  for  the  accession  of  the  second 
(Median)  dynasty.  This  double  coincidence  can  scarcely  be 
accidental ; and  we  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  we  have  in  the 
above  table  at  any  rate  a near  approach  to  the  scheme  of  Baby- 
lonian chronology  as  received  among  both  the  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  in  the  seventh  century  before  our  era. 

Whether  the  chronology  is  wholly  trustworthy  is  another 
question.  The  evidence  both  of  the  classical  writers 9 and  of  the 
monuments  is  to  the  effect  that  exact  chronology  was  a subject 
to  which  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  paid  great  attention. 
The  “ Canon  of  Ptolemy,”  which  contained  an  exact  Babylonian 
computation  of  time  from  b.c.  747  to  B.c.  331  is  generally 
allowed  to  be  a most  authentic  document,  and  one  on  which  we 
may  place  complete  reliance.1  The  “ Assyrian  Canon,”  which 
gives  the  years  of  the  Assyrian  monarchs  from  B.c.  911  to  b.c. 
660,  appears  to  be  equally  trustworthy.  How  much  further 
exact  notation  went  back,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  All  that  we 
know  is,  first,  that  the  later  Assyrian  monarchs  believed  they  had 
means  of  fixing  the  exact  date  of  events  in  their  own  history  and 
in  that  of  Babylon  up  to  a time  distant  from  their  own  as  much 


8 G.  Smith  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Aegypti- 
sche  Sprac/te,  November,  1868. 

9 Herod,  i.  95 ; Aristot.  De  Coelo , ii. 
1 2,  § 3 ; Simplic.  Comment,  ad  Aristot. 
de  Coelo,  ii.  p.  123. 


1 Mr.  Rosanquet  is  almost  the  only 
ehronologer  who  still  disputes  the  ac- 
curacy of  this  document.  (See  his 
Messiah  the  Piince , Appendix,  pp.  455-8, 
2nd  edition.) 


Chap.  VIII.  FOUNDING  OF  THE  EMPIRE  — NIMROD. 


153 


as  sixteen  or  seventeen  hundred  years  ; and,  secondly,  that  the 
chronology  which  results  from  their  statements  and  those  of 
Berosus  is  moderate,  probable,  and  in  harmony  with  all  the 
knowledge  which  we  obtain  of  the  East  from  other  sources.  It 
is  proposed  therefore,  in  the  present  volumes,  to  accept  the 
general  scheme  of  Berosus  as,  in  all  probability,  not  seriously  in 
error ; and  to  arrange  the  Chaldsean,  Assyrian,  and  Babylonian 
history  on  the  framework,  which  it  furnishes. 

Chaldsean  history  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  opening  upon 
us  at  a time  anterior,  at  any  rate  by  a century  or  two,2  to  B.c. 
2286.  It  was  then  that  Nimrod,  the  son  or  descendant  of  Cush, 
set  up  a kingdom  in  Lower  Mesopotamia,  which  attracted  the 
attention  of  surrounding  nations.  The  people,  whom  he  led, 
came  probably  by  sea ; at  any  rate,  their  earliest  settlements 
were  on  the  coast ; and  Ur  or  Hur,  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Euphrates,  at  a very  short  distance  from  its  embouchure,  was 
the  primitive  capital.  The  “mighty  hunter”  rapidly  spread 
his  dominion  inland,  subduing  or  expelling  the  various  tribes 
by  which  the  country  was  previously  occupied.  His  kingdom 
extended  northwards,  at  least  as  far  as  Babylon,  which  (as 
well  as  Erecli  or  Huruk,  Accad,  and  Calneh)  was  first  founded 
by  this  monarch.3  Further  historical  details  of  his  reign  are 
wanting ; but  the  strength  of  his  character  and  the  greatness 
of  his  achievements  are  remarkably  indicated  by  a variety  of 
testimonies,  which  place  him  among  the  foremost  men  of  the 
Old  World,  and  guarantee  him  a never-ending  remembrance. 
At  least  as  early  as  the  time  of  Moses  his  name  had  passed  into 
a proverb.  He  was  known  as  “ the  mighty  hunter  before  the 
Lord  ” 4 — an  expression  which  had  probably  a double  meaning, 
implying  at  once  skill  and  bravery  in  the  pursuit  and  destruc- 


2  Syncellus  gave  225  years  to  the 
first  Chaldcean  dynasty  in  Babylonia ; 
hut  it  is  difficult  to  say  on  what  basis 
he  went.  He  admitted  seven  kings,  to 
whom  he  gave  the  names  of  Evechius, 

Chomasbelus,  Porus,  Nechubas,  Nabius, 

Oniballus,  and  Zinzerus.  These  names 
do  not  much  encourage  us  to  view  the 
list  as  historical.  Three  of  them  belong 


to  the  late  Babylonian  period.  One 
only  (Chomasbelus,  perhaps  Shamas-Bel) 
has  at  all  the  air  of  a name  of  this 
early  time. 

3 Gen.  x.  10. 

4 Gen.  x.  9 : “ He  was  a mighty  hunter 
before  the  Lord ; wherefore  it  is  said, 
Even  as  Nimrod,  the  mighty  hunter 
before  the  Lord.” 


154 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YIII. 


tion  of  wild  beasts,  and  also  a genius  for  war  and  success  in  his 
aggressions  upon  men.  In  his  own  nation  he  seems  to  have 
been  deified,  and  to  have  continued  down  to  the  latest  times 
one  of  the  leading  objects  of  worship,  under  the  title  of  Bilu- 
Nipru  or  Bel-Nimrod,3 * 5  which  may  be  translated  “the  god  of  the 
chace,”  or  “ the  great  hunter.”  One  of  his  capitals,  Calneh, 
which  was  regarded  as  his  special  city,  appears  afterwards  to 
have  been  known  by  his  name  (probably  as  being  the  chief  seat 
of  his  worship  in  the  early  times)  ; and  this  name  it  still  retains, 
slightly  corrupted.  In  the  modern  Niffer  we  may  recognise  the 
Talmudica.1  Noplier,  and  the  Assyrian  Nijpur,  which  is  Nipru, 
with  a mere  metathesis  of  the  two  final  letters.  The  fame  of 
Nimrod  has  always  been  rife  in  the  country  of  his  domination. 
Arab  writers  record  a number  of  remarkable  traditions,  in  which 
he  plays  a conspicuous  part;6  and  there  is  little  doubt  but  that 
it  is  in  honour  of  his  apotheosis  that  the  constellation  Orion 
bears  in  Arabian  astronomy  the  title  of  El  Jabbar,  or  “ the 
giant.”7  Even  at  the  present  day  his  name  lives  in  the  mouth 
of  the  people  inhabiting  Chaldsea  and  the  adjacent  regions, 
whose  memory  of  ancient  heroes  is  almost  confined  to  three — 
Nimrod,  Solomon,  and  Alexander.  Wherever  a mound  of  ashes 
is  to  be  seen  in  Babylonia  or  the  adjoining  countries,  the  local 
traditions  attach  to  it  the  name  of  Nimrud  or  Nimrod;8  and 
the  most  striking  ruins  now  existing  in  the  Mesopotamian 
valley,  whether  in  its  upper  or  its  lower  portion,  are  made  in 
this  way  monuments  of  his  glory.9 


3 The  Greek  forms,  Nefip&S  and  Ne- 
serve  to  connect  Nipru  with 

The  native  root  is  thought  to  be 

napar , “ to  pursue,”  or  “ cause  to  flee.” 
(See  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  i.  p. 
597.) 

6  Yacut  declares  that  Nimrod  at- 
tempted to  mount  to  heaven  on  the 
wings  of  an  eagle,  and  makes  Niffer 

(Calneh)  the  scene  of  this  occurrence. 
{Lex.  Geograph,  in  voc.  Niffer.')  It  is 

supposed  that  we  have  here  an  allusion 

to  the  building  of  the  tower  of  Babel. 
The  Koran  contains  a story  of  Nimrod’s 


casting  Abraham  into  a fiery  furnace. 

7 The  Arabic  Jabbar  represents  the 

Hebrew  "lSJ,  which  is  the  epithet 

applied  to  Nimrod  in  Gen.  x.  9.  The 
identification  of  Nimrod  with  Orion  is 
noted  by  Greek  writers.  (See  John  of 
Antioch,  Fr.  3;  Pasch.  Chron.  vol.  i. 
p.  64;  John  of  Malala,  p.  17  ; Cedrenus, 
vol.  i.  p.  27  ; &c.)  Orion  is  a “mighty 
hunter,”  even  in  Homer.  (See  Odyss. 
xi.  572-575.) 

8 Journ.  of  Asiatic  Soc.  vol.  xv.  p.  230. 

9 The  great  temple  of  Borsippa  is 
known  as  the  Birs-i-Nimrud ; and  the 


Chai>.  VIII. 


SUCCESSORS  OE  NIMROD  — URUKH. 


1 55 


Of  the  immediate  successors  of  Nimrod  we  have  no  account 
that  even  the  most  lenient  criticism  can  view  as  historical.  It 
appears  that  his  conquest  was  followed,  rapidly  by  a Semitic 
emigration  from  the  country — an  emigration  which  took  a 
northerly  direction.  The  Assyrians  withdrew  from  Babylonia, 
which  they  still  always  regarded  as  their  parent  land,  and, 
occupying  the  upper  or  non-alluvial  portion  of  the  Mesopotamian 
plain,  commenced  the  building  of  great  cities  in  the  tract  upon 
the  middle  Tigris.1  The  Phoenicians  removed  from  the  shores 
of  the  Persian  Gulf,  and,  journeying  towards  the  north-west, 
formed  settlements  upon  the  coast  of  Canaan,2  where  they 
became  a rich  and  prosperous  people.  The  family  of  Abra- 
ham, and  probably  other  Aramsean  families,  ascended  the 
Euphrates,3  withdrawing  from  a yoke  which  was  oppressive,  or 
at  any  rate  unpleasant.  Abundant  room  was  thus  made  for  the 
Cushite  immigrants,  who  rapidly  established  their  preponde- 
rance over  the  whole  of  the  southern  region.  As  war  ceased  to 
be  the  necessary  daily  occupation  of  the  new  comers,  civilisa- 
tion and  the  arts  of  life  began  to  appear.  The  reign  of  the 
“ Hunter  ” was  followed,  after  no  long  time,  by  that  of  the 
“ Builder.”  A monumental  king,  whose  name  is  read  doubt- 
fully as  Urkham 4 or  Urukh,  belongs  almost  certainly  to  this 
early  dynasty,  and  may  be  placed  next  in  succession,  though  at 
what  interval  we  cannot  say,  to  Nimrod.  He  is  beyond  ques- 
tion the  earliest  Chaldsean  monarch  of  whom  any  remains  have 
been  obtained  in  the  country.  Not  only  are  his  bricks  found 
in  a lower  position  than  any  others,  at  the  very  foundations  of 
buildings,  but  they  are  of  a rude  and  coarse  make,  and  the 
inscriptions  upon  them  contrast  most  remarkably,  in  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  style  of  writing  used  and  in  their  general  archaic 


simple  name  Nimrud  is  given  to  probably 
the  most  striking  heap  of  ruins  in  the 
ancient  Assyria.  1 Gen.  x.  11,  12. 

2 Herod,  i.  1 ; vii.  89  ; Strab.  xvi.  3 § 4; 
Justin,  xviii.  3,  § 2 ; PHn.  H.  N.  iv.  22  ; 
Dionys.  Per.  1.  906.  3 Gen.  xi.  31. 

4 This  conjectural  reading  of  the 
name  has  led  to  a further  conjecture, 
viz.  that  in  this  monumental  sovereign 
we  have  the  real  original  of  the  “ Or- 


chamus  ” of  Ovid,  whom  he  represents 
as  the  seventh  successor  of  Belus  in  the 
government  of  Babylon  ( Metaph . iv. 
212-3).  But  the  phonetic  value  of  the 
monograms,  in  which  the  names  of  the 
early  Chaldsean  kings  are  written,  is  so 
wholly  uncertain  that  it  seems  best  to 
abstain  from  speculations,  which  may 
have  their  basis  struck  from  under 
them  at  any  moment. 


156 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


type,  with  the  elaborate  and  often  complicated  symbols  of  the 
later  monarchs.5  The  style  of  Urukh’s  buildings  is  also  primi- 
tive and  simple  in  the  extreme ; his  bricks  are  of  many  sizes, 
and  ill  fitted  together ; 6 he  belongs  to  a time  when  even  the 
baking  of  bricks  seems  to  have  been  comparatively  rare,  for 
sometimes  he  employs  only  the  sun-dried,  material ; 7 and  he  is 
altogether  unacquainted  with  the  use  of  lime  mortar,  for  which 
his  substitute  is  moist  mud,  or  else  bitumen.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  he  stands  at  the  head  of  the  present  series  of 
monumental  kings,  another  of  whom  probably  reigned  as  early 
as  b.c.  2286.  As  he  was  succeeded  by  a son,  whose  reign  seems 
to  have  been  of  the  average  length,  we  must  place  his  accession 
at  least  as  early  as  b.c.  2326.  Possibly  it  may  have  fallen  a 
century  earlier. 

It  is  as  a builder  of  gigantic  works  that  Urukh  is  chiefly 
known  to  us.  The  basement  platforms  of  his  temples  are  of 
an  enormous  size ; and  though  they  cannot  seriously  be  com- 
pared with  the  Egyptian  pyramids,  yet  indicate  the  employ- 
ment for  many  years  of  a vast  amount  of  human  labour  in  a 
very  unproductive  sort  of  industry.  The  Bowariyeh  mound  at 
Warka  is  200  feet  square,  and  about  100  feet  high.8  Its  cubic 
contents,  as  originally  built,  can  have  been  little,  if  at  all,  under 
3,000,000  feet ; and  above  30,000,000  of  bricks  must  have  been 
used  in  its  construction.  Constructions  of  a similar  character, 
and  not  very  different  in  their  dimensions,  are  proved  by  the 
bricks  composing  them  to  have  been  raised  by  the  same  monarch 
at  Ur,  Calneh  or  Nipur,  and  Larancha  or  Larsa,  which  is  perhaps 
Ellasar.9  It  is  evident,  from  the  size  and  number  of  these  works, 
that  their  erector  had  the  command  of  a vast  amount  of  “naked 
human  strength,”  and  did  not  scruple  to  employ  that  strength 
in  constructions  from  which  no  material  benefit  was  derivable, 
but  which  were  probably  designed  chiefly  to  extend  his  own 
fame  and  perpetuate  his  glory.  We  may  gather  from  this  that 


5 See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson’s  remarks  in 

the  author’s  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  425 ; 

and  compare  above,  pp.  63,  64. 

15  Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 

pp.  261-263;  Loi'tus,  Chaldcea  and 


Susiana,  p.  168. 

7 As  in  the  Bowariyeh  ruin  at  Warka 
(Loftus,  p.  167). 

8 Supra,  pp.  75,  76,  9 Gen,  xiv.  1. 


Chap.  VIII. 


URUKH’S  GREAT  BUILDINGS. 


157 


lie  was  either  an  oppressor  of  his  people,  like  some  of  the 
Pyramid  Kings  in  Egypt,10  or  else  a conqueror,  who  thus 
employed  the  numerous  captives  carried  off  in  his  expeditions. 
Perhaps  the  latter  is  the  more  probable  supposition  ; for  the 
builders  of  the  great  fabrics  in  Babylonia  and  Chaldgea  do  not 
seem  to  have  left  behind  them  any  character  of  oppressiveness, 
such  as  attaches  commonly  to  those  monarchs  who  have  ground 
down  their  own  people  by  servile  labour. 

The  great  buildings  of  Urukh  appear  to  have  been  all  designed 
for  temples.  They  are  carefully  placed  with  their  angles  facing 
the  cardinal  points,1  and  are  dedicated  to  the  Sun,  the  Moon, 
to  Belus  (Bel-Nimrod),  or  to  Beltis.  The  temple  at  Mugheir 
was  built  in  honour  of  the  Moon-god,  Bin  or  Hurki,  who  was 
the  tutelary  deity  of  the  city.  The  Warka  temple  was  dedi- 
cated to  Beltis.  At  Oalneh  or  Nipur,  IJrukk  erected  two 
temples,  one  to  Beltis  and  one  to  Belus.  At  Larsa  or  Ellasar 
the  object  of  his  worship  was  the  Sun-god,  San  or  Sansi.  He 
would  thus  seem  to  have  been  no  special  devotee  of  a single 
god,  but  to  have  divided  out  his  favours  very  fairly  among  the 
chief  personages  of  the  Pantheon. 

It  has  been  observed  that  both  the  inscriptions  of  this  king, 
and  his  architecture,  are  of  a rude  and  primitive  type.  Still  in 
neither  case  do  we  seem  to  be  brought  to  the  earliest  dawn  of 
civilisation  or  of  art.  The  writing  of  IJrukh  has  passed  out 
of  the  first  or  hieroglyphic  stage,  and  entered  the  second  or 
transition  one,  when  pictures  are  no  longer  attempted,  but  the 
lines  or  wedges  follow  roughly  the  old  outline  of  the  objects.2 
In  his  architecture,  again,  though  there  is  much  that  is  rude 
and  simple,  there  is  also  a good  deal  which  indicates  knowledge 
and  experience.  The  use  of  the  buttress  is  understood ; and 
the  buttress  is  varied  according  to  the  material.3  The  impor- 
tance of  sloping  the  walls  of  buildings  inwards  to  resist  interior 


10  Herod. ii.  124, 128;  Arist.Pol.vii.il. 

1 Loftus,  Chaldaza  and  Susiana,  p.  246. 

2 Supra,  pp.  63,  64. 

3 Compare  the  slight  buttresses,  only 
13  inches  thick,  supporting  the  Mugheir 
temple,  which  has  a facing  of  burnt 


brick  to  the  depth  of  ten  feet,  with  the 
strong  ones  at  Warka  (where  unburnt 
brick  is  the  material  used),  which  pro- 
ject seven  feet  and  a half  from  the 
central  mass.  (Loftus,  pp.  128,  129, 
and  p.  169.) 


158 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chav.  VIII. 


pressure  is  thoroughly  recognised.4  Drains  are  introduced  to 
carry  off  moisture,  which  must  otherwise  have  been  very  destruc- 
tive to  buildings  composed  mainly,  or  entirely,  of  crude  brick. 
It  is  evident  that  the  builders  whom  the  king  employs,  though 
they  do  not  possess  much  genius,  have  still  such  a knowledge  of 
the  most  important  principles  of  their  art  as  is  only  obtained 
gradually  by  a good  deal  of  practice.  Indeed  the  very  fact 
of  the  continued  existence  of  their  works  at  the  distance  of  forty 
centuries  is  sufficient  evidence  that  they  possessed  a considerable 
amount  of  architectural  skill  and  knowledge. 

We  are  further,  perhaps,  justified  in  concluding,  from  the 
careful  emplacement  of  Urukh’s  temples,  that  the  science  of 
astronomy  was  already  cultivated  in  his  reign,  and  was  regarded 
as  having  a certain  connexion  with  religion.  We  have  seen  that 
the  early  worship  of  the  Chaldseans  was  to  a great  extent  astral 5 
— a fact  which  naturally  made  the  heavenly  bodies  special  objects 
of  attention.  If  the  series  of  observations,  which  Callisthenes 
sent  to  Aristotle,  dating  from  b.c.  2234,  was  in  reality  a record, 
and  not  a mere  calculation  backwards  of  the  dates  at  which 
certain  celestial  phenomena  must  have  taken  place,  astronomical 
studies  must  have  been  pretty  well  advanced  at  a period  not 
long  subsequent  to  Urukh. 

Nor  must  we  omit  to  notice,  if  we  would  estimate  aright  the 
condition  of  Chaldman  art  under  this  king,  the  indications  fur- 
nished by  his  signet-cylinder.  So  far  as  we  can  judge  from 
the  representation,  which  is  all  that  we  possess  of  this  relic,  the 
drawing  on  the  cylinder  was  as  good  and  the  engraving  as  well 
executed  as  any  work  of  the  kind,  either  of  the  Assyrian  or 
of  the  later  Babylonian  period.  Apart  from  the  inscription,  this 
work  of  art  has  nothing  about  it  that  is  rude  or  primitive.  The 
elaboration  of  the  dresses  and  headgear  of  the  figures  has  been 
already  noticed.6  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  prin- 
cipal figure  sits  on  an  ornamental  throne  or  chair,  of  particu- 
larly tasteful  construction,  two  legs  of  which  appear  to  have 
been  modelled  after  those  of  the  bull  or  ox.  We  may  conclude, 


4 Loftus,  p.  128. 


5 See  above,  ch.  vii.  p.  111. 


6 Supra,  pp.  105  and  106. 


Chap.  YIII. 


REIGN  OF  ILGI. 


159 


without  much  danger  of  mistake,  that  in  the  time  of  the  monarch 
who  owned  this  seal,  dresses  of  delicate  fabric  and  elaborate 
pattern,  and  furniture  of  a recherche  and  elegant  shape,  were  in 
use  among  the  people  over  whom  he  exercised  dominion. 

The  chief  capital  city  of  Urukh  appears  to  have  been  Ur. 
He  calls  himself  “ King  of  Ur  and  Kingi-Accad  ” ; and  it  is  at 
Ur  that  he  raises  his  principal  buildings.  Ur,  too,  has  furnished 
the  great  bulk  of  his  inscriptions.  Babylon  was  not  yet  a place 
of  much  importance,  though  it  was  probably  built  by  Nimrod. 
The  second  city  of  the  Empire  was  Huruk  or  Erech:  other 
places  of  importance  were  Larsa  (Ellasar?)  and  Nipur  or 
Calneh. 

Urukh  appears  to  have  been  succeeded  in  the  kingdom  by  a 
son,  whose  name  it  is  proposed  to  read  as  Elgi  or  Ilgi.  Of  this 
prince  our  knowledge  is  somewhat  scanty.  Bricks  bearing  his 
name  have  been  found  at  Ur  (Mugheir)  and  at  Tel  Eid,  near 
Erech,  or  Warka ; and  his  signet-cylinder  has  been  recovered, 
and  is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  We  learn  from  inscriptions 
of  Nabonidus  that  he  completed  some  of  the  buildings  at  Ur, 
which  had  been  left  unfinished  by  his  father ; while  his  own 
bricks  inform  us  that  he  built  or  repaired  two  of  the  principal 
temples  at  Erech.  On  his  signet-cylinder  he  takes  the  title 
of  “ King  of  Ur.” 

After  the  death  of  Ilgi,  Chaldsean  history  is  for  a time  a blank. 
It  would  seem,  however,  that,  while  the  Cushites  were  establish- 
ing themselves  in  the  alluvial  plain  towards  the  mouths  of  the 
two  great  rivers,  there  was  growing  up  a rival  power,  Turanian, 
or  Ario-T uranian,7  in  the  neighbouring  tract  at  the  foot  of  the 
Zagros  mountain-chain.  One  of  the  most  ancient,  perhaps  the 


7 At  this  early  period  in  the  world’s 
history,  the  differences  between  the 
great  families  of  human  speech  were 
but  very  partially  developed.  Language 
was  altogether  in  an  agglutinate,  rather 
than  in  an  inflected,  state.  The  intricacies 
of  Arian — even  the  lesser  intricacies  of 
Semitic  grammar— had  not  been  in- 
vented. Languages  differed  one  from 
another  chiefly  in  their  vocabularies. 
What  we  observe  with  respect  to  the 
Susianians  or  Elamites  is,  that  while 


their  vocabulary  is  mainly  Turanian, 
it  also  contains  numerous  words  which 
were  continued  in  the  later  Arian 
speech.  For  instance,  Nakhunta  is  be- 
yond a doubt  the  Anahita  of  the  Persians 
and  the  Anaitis  of  the  Greeks.  Kudur 
is  the  same  word  as  the  Persian  chitra , 
“ sprung  from  ” (compare  Zend  chithra , 
“ seed  ”).  Mabuk  is,  perhaps,  Mahog, 
which  is  formed  from  the  two  thoroughly 
Arian  roots,  ma,  “ mother,”  and  bog  1 Old 
Pers.  baga , Slavon.  bog,  bogie \ “ God.” 


i6o 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII- 


most  ancient,  of  all  the  Asiatic  cities,  was  Susa,  the  Elamitic 
capital,  which  formed  the  centre  of  a nationality  that  endured 
from  the  twenty-third  century  b.c.  to  the  time  of  Darius 
Hystaspis  (b.c.  520),  when  it  sank  finally  under  the  Persians.8 
A king  of  Elam,  whose  court  was  held  at  Susa,  led,  in  the  year 
b.c.  2286  (or  a little  earlier9),  an  expedition  against  the  cities 
of  Chaldsea,  succeeded  in  carrying  all  before  him,  ravaged  the 
county,  took  the  towns,  plundered  the  temples,  and  bore  off 
into  his  own  country,  as  the  most  striking  evidence  of  victory, 
the  images  of  the  deities  which  the  Babylonians  especially 
reverenced.10  This  king’s  name,  which  was  Kudur-Nakhunta,  is 
thought  to  be  the  exact  equivalent  of  one  which  has  a world- 
wide celebrity,  to  wit,  Zoroaster.1  Now,  according  to  Poly- 
hist  or 2 (who  here  certainly  repeats  Berosus),  Zoroaster  was  the 
first  of  those  eight  Median  kings  who  composed  the  second 
dynasty  in  Ohaldsea,  and  occupied  the  throne  from  about  b.c. 
2286  to  2052.  The  Medes  are  represented  by  him  as  capturing 
Babylon  at  this  time,  and  imposing  themselves  as  rulers  upon 
the  country.  Eight  kings  reign  in  the  space  of  234  (or  224) 
years,  after  which  we  hear  no  more  of  Medes,  the  sovereignty 
being  (as  it  would  seem)  recovered  by  the  natives.  The  coin- 
cidences of  the  conquest,  the  date,  the  foreign  sovereignty,  and 
the  name  Zoroaster,  tend  to  identify  the  Median  dynasty  of 
Berosus  with  a period  of  Susianian  supremacy,3  which  the 


8 See  Behist.  Inscr.  col.  i.  pars.  16, 17  ; 
col.  ii.  pars.  3,  4.  The  transfer  of  the  Tere- 
sian capital  to  Susa,  which  took  place 
soon  after  this,  was  probably  in  part  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  superior  anti- 
quity and  dignity  of  the  Elamitic  capital. 

9 The  date  of  Asshur-bani-pal’s  con- 
quest of  Susa  is  doubtful.  It  may  have 
been  as  early  as  b.c.  661.  (See  Mr.  Gi. 
Smith’s  paper  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur 
Aegyptische  Sprache  for  Nov.  1868,  p. 
116.)  The  conquest  of  Chaldsea  by 
Kudur-Nakhunta  may  therefore  have 
fallen  as  early  as  b.c.  2296. 

10  Zeitschrift , 1.  s.  c. 

1  It  was  long  ago  suggested  by  Sir  II. 
Rawlinson  that  the  etymology  of  this 
name  is  to  be  sought  in  the  languages 
of  the  Semitic  rather  than  in  those  of 


the  Arian  family  ( Journal  of  Asiatic 
Society vol.  xv.  p.  227,  note  2)  ; and 
that  its  true  meaning  is  “ the  seed  of 
Ishtar  (Venus).”  If  so,  Kudur-Na- 
khunta would  exactly  correspond  to 
Zoro-aster  (or  Ziru-Ishtar).  Seep.  159, 
note  7. 

2 Ap.  Syncell.  Chronograph,  p 78,  B. 
Compare  Mos.  Choren.  Hist.  Armen,  i.  5. 
“ Zoroastrem  Magum  . . . qui  fuit  Me- 
dorum  principium.” 

3 By  calling  his  second  dynasty  “Me- 
dian,” Berosus  probably  only  meant  to 
say  that  it  came  from  the  mountain 
tract  east  of  Babylonia,  which  in  his 
own  day  had  been  for  so  many  ages  the 
seat  of  Medo-Persic  power.  Susiana 
had  in  his  time  been  completely  ab- 
sorbed into  Persia.  (Strabo,  xv.  3 § 2.) 


Chap.  VIII. 


REIGN  OF  CHEDOR-LAOMER. 


161 


monuments  show  to  have  been  established  in  Chaldsea  at  a date 
not  long  subsequent  to  the  reigns  of  Urukh  and  Ilgi,  and  to 
have  lasted  for  a considerable  period. 

There  are  five  monarchs  known  to  us  who  may  be  assigned 
to  this  dynasty.  The  first  is  the  Kudur-Nakhunta  above  named, 
who  conquered  Babylonia  and  established  his  influence  there, 
but  continued  to  hold  his  court  at  Susa,  governing  his  conquest 
probably  by  means  of  a viceroy  or  tributary  king.  Next  to 
him,  at  no  great  interval,  may  be  placed  Kudur-Lagamer,  the 
Chedor-laomer  of  Scripture,4  who  held  a similar  position  to 
Kudur-Nakhunta,  reigning  himself  in  Elam,  while  his  vassals, 
Amraphel,  Arioch,  and  Tidal  (or  Turgal 5)  held  the  governments 
respectively  of  Shinar  (or  Upper  Babylonia),  Ellasar  (Lower 
Babylonia  or  Chaldsea),  and  the  Go'im  or  the  nomadic  races. 
Possessing  thus  an  authority  over  the  whole  of  the  alluvial 
plain,  and  being  able  to  collect  together  a formidable  army, 
Kudur-Lagamer  resolved  on  an  expedition  up  the  Euphrates, 
with  the  object  of  extending  his  dominion  to  the  Mediterranean 
Sea  and  to  the  borders  of  Egypt.  At  first  his  endeavours  were 
successful.  Together  with  his  confederate  kings,  he  marched  as 
far  as  Palestine,  where  he  was  opposed  by  the  native  princes,  Bera, 
king  of  Sodom,  Birsha,  king  of  Gomorrah,  Shinab,  king  of 
Admah,  Shemeber,  king  of  Zeboiim,  and  the  king  of  Bela  or 
Zoar.6  A great  battle  was  fought  between  the  two  confederated 
armies  in  the  vale  of  Siddim  towards  the  lower  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea.7  The  invaders  were  victorious ; and  for  twelve  years, 
Bera  and  his  allies  were  content  to  own  themselves  subjects  of 
the  Elamitic  king,  whom  they  “ served  ” for  that  period.8  In  the 


> 4 Gen.  xiv.  1. 

5 For  the  Tidal  (pjnH)  the 
present  Hebrew  text,  the  LXX.  have 
Thargal  (0a/ryaA),  which  implies  a 

reading  of  in  their  copies. 

Turgal  would  be  significative  in  early 
Babylonian,  meaning  “ the  great  chief.” 
(See  Smith’s  Biblical  Dictionary , ad  voc. 
Tidal.)  6 Gen.  xiv.  2. 

7 The  scene  of  the  battle  seems  to 
have  been  that  part  of  the  plain  which 

VOL.  I. 


was  afterwards  submerged,  when  the 
area  of  the  Dead  Sea  was  extended. 
Compare  the  expression  (Gen.  xiv.  3), 
“ All  these  were  joined  together  in  the 
vale  of  Siddim,  which  is  the  salt  sea ; ” 
and  see  Mr.  Ffoulkes’s  article  on  Go- 
morrah in  Dr.  Smith’s  Biblical  Dic- 
tionary, vol.  i.  pp.  709,  710. 

8 “ Twelve  years  they  served  Chedor- 
laomer,  and  in  the  thirteenth  year  they 
rebelled.”  (Gen.  xiv.  4.) 


M 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


162 

thirteenth  y ear  they  rebelled : a general  rising  of  the  western 
nations  seems  to  have  taken  place;9  and  in  order  to  main- 
tain his  conquests  it  was  necessary  for  the  conqueror  to  make  a 
fresh  effort.  Once  more  the  four  eastern  kings  entered  Syria, 
and,  after  various  successes  against  minor  powers,  engaged  a 
second  time  in  the  valley  of  Siddim  with  their  old  antagonists, 
whom  they  defeated  with  great  slaughter;  after  which  they 
plundered  the  chief  cities  belonging  to  them.10  It  was  on  this 
occasion  that  Lot,  the  nephew  of  Abraham,  was  taken  prisoner. 
Laden  with  booty  of  various  kinds,  and  encumbered  with  a 
number  of  captives,  male  and  female,1  the  conquering  army  set 
out  upon  its  march  home,  and  had  reached  the  neighbourhood 
of  Damascus,  when  it  was  attacked  and  defeated  by  Abraham, 
who  with  a small  band  ventured  under  cover  of  night  to  fall 
upon  the  retreating  host,.,  which  he  routed  and  pursued  to  some 
distance.2  The  actual  slaughter  can  scarcely  have  been  great ; 
but  the  prisoners  and  the  booty  taken  had  to  be  surrendered ; 
the  prestige  of  victory  was  lost ; and  the  result  appears  to  have 
been  that  the  Mesopotamian  monarch  relinquished  his  projects, 
and,  contenting  himself  with  the  fame  acquired  by  such  distant 
expeditions,  made  no  further  attempt  to  carry  his  empire  beyond 
the  Euphrates.3 

The  other  three  kings  who  may  be  assigned  to  the  Elamitic 
dynasty  are  a father,  son,  and  grandson,  whose  names  appear 
upon  the  native  monuments  of  Chaldaea  in  a position  which  is 
thought  to  imply  that  they  were  posterior  to  the  kings  Urukli 
and  Ilgi,  but  of  greater  antiquity  than  any  other  monarchs  who 
have  left  memorials  in  the  country.  Their  names  are  read  as 
Sinti-shil-khak,  Kudur-Mabuk,  and  Arid-Sin.  Of  Sinti-shil- 


9 Among  the  nations  chastised  by 
Chedor-laomer  on  his  second  invasion 
we  find  the  Rephaim  or  “Giants,”  the 
Zuzim,  the  Emim,  the  Horites,  the 
Amorites,  and  the  Amalekites.  (Gen. 
xiv.  5-7.) 

10  Gen.  xiv.  9-12.  1 Gen.  xiv.  16. 

2 May  not  the  tradition,  that  Abra- 
ham was  king  of  Damascus  (Nic.  Dam. 
Fr.  30),  be  connected  with  this  exploit  ? 


It  could  scarcely  have  been  grounded  on 
the  mere  fad;  that  he  had  for  steward  a 
native  of  that  city.  (Gen.  xv.  2.) 

3 The  expression  in  verse  17  of  the 
Authorised  Version,  “ the  slaughter  of 
Chedor-laomer,  and  of  the  kings  which 
were  with  him,”  is  over-strong.  The 

Hebrew  phrase  does  not  mean 

more  than  “ defeat  ” or  “ overthrow.” 


Chap.  VIE  END  OF  ELAMITIC  DYNASTY.  1 63 

khak  nothing  is  known  beyond  the  name.4  Kudur-Mabuk  is 
said  in  the  inscriptions  of  his  son  to  have  “ enlarged  the  do- 
minions of  the  city  of  Ur;”  and  on  his  own  bricks  he  bears  the 
title  of  Ajoda  Martu,  which  probably  means  “ Conqueror  of  the 
West.”5  We  may  presume  therefore  that  he  was  a warlike 
prince,  like  Kudur-Nakhunta  and  Kudur-Lagamer ; and  that, 
like  the  latter  of  these  two  kings,  he  made  war  in  the  direction 
of  Syria,  though  he  may  not  have  carried  his  arms  so  far  as  his 
great  predecessor.  He  and  his  son  both  held  their  court  at 
Ur,6  and,  though  of  foreign  origin,  maintained  the  Chaldsean 
religion  unchanged,  making  additions  to  the  ancient  temples, 
and  worshipping  the  Chaldaean  gods  under  the  old  titles. 

The  circumstances  which  brought  the  Elamitic  dynasty  to  a 
close,  and  restored  the  Chaldsean  throne  to  a line  of  native 
princes,  are  unrecorded  by  any  historian ; nor  have  the  monu- 
ments hitherto  thrown  any  light  upon  them.  If  we  may  trust 
the  numbers  of  the  Armenian  Eusebius,7  the  dynasty  which 
succeeded,  ab.  b.c.  2052,  to  the  Susianian  (or  Median),  though 
it  counted  eleven  kings,  bore  rule  for  the  short  space  of  forty- 
eight  years  only.  This  would  seem  to  imply  either  a state  of 
great  internal  disturbance,  or  a time  during  which  viceroys, 
removable  at  pleasure  and  often  removed,  governed  the  country 
under  some  foreign  suzerain.8  In  either  case,  the  third  dynasty 
of  Berosus  may  be  said  to  mark  a transition  period  between  the 
time  of  foreign  subjection  and  that  of  the  recovery  by  the  native 
Chaldaeans  of  complete  independence. 

To  the  fourth  Berosian  dynasty,  which  held  the  throne  for  458 


4 It  is  not,  perhaps,  quite  certain 
that  Sinti-shil-khak  was  a Chaldsean 
monarch.  His  name  appears  only  in  the 
inscriptions  of  his  son,  Kudur-Mabuk, 
where  he  is  not  given  the  title  of 
king. 

5 Martu  certainly  means  either  “ the 
West  ” generally,  or  Syria  in  particular, 
which  was  the  most  western  country 
known  to  the  early  Babylonians.  Apda 
is  perhaps  connected  with  the  Hebrew 
root  "QX,  which  in  the  Hiphil  has  the 
sense  of  “ destroy  ” or  “ ravage.” 

6 The  inscriptions  of  Kudur-Mabuk 

and  Arid-Sin  have  been  found  only 


at  Mugheir,  the  ancient  Ur.  (See  British 
Mus.  Series , vol.  i.  PI.  2,  No.  iii.,  and 
PI.  5,  No.  xvi.) 

7 It  is  true  that  the  number  48  oc- 
curs only  in  the  margin  of  the  Armenian 
MS.  But  the  inserter  of  that  number 
must  have  had  it  before  him  in  some 
copy  of  Eusebius;  for  he  could  not 
have  conjectured  it  from  the  number 
of  the  kings. 

8 Compare  the  rapid  succession  in  the 
seventh  dynasty,  which  is  given  (par- 
tially) in  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  more  fully 
in  the  fragments  of  Berosus  and  Poly- 
histor. 

M 2 


164 


THE  FIE  ST  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


years,  from  about  B.c.  2004  to  B.c.  1546,  the  monuments  enable 
us  to  assign  some  eight  or  ten  monarcbs,  whose  inscriptions  are 
characterised  by  a general  resemblance,  and  by  a character 
intermediate  between  the  extreme  rudeness  of  the  more  ancient 
and  the  comparative  elegance  and  neatness  of  the  later  legends. 
Of  these  kings  one  of  the  earliest  was  a certain  Ismi-dagon, 
the  date  of  whose  reign  we  are  able  to  fix  with  a near  approach 
to  exactness.  Sennacherib,  in  a rock  inscription  at  Bavian, 
relates  that  in  his  tenth  year  (which  was  b.c.  692)  he  recovered 
from  Babylon  certain  images  of  the  gods  which  had  been  carried 
thither  by  Merodach-iddin-aJchi,  King  of  Babylon,  after  his 
defeat  of  Tiglath-Pileser,  King  of  Assyria,  418  years  previously. 
And  the  same  Tiglath-Pileser  relates,  that  he  rebuilt  a temple 
in  Assyria,  which  had  been  taken  down  60  years  before,  after  it 
had  lasted  641  years  from  its  foundation  by  Shamas-Vul,  son 
of  Ismi-dagon.9  It  results  from  these  numbers,  that  Ismi-dagon 
was  king  as  early  as  b.c.  1850,  or,  probably,  a little  earlier.10 

The  monuments  furnish  little  information  concerning  Ismi- 
dagon,  beyond  the  evidence  which  they  afford  of  the  extension 
of  this  king’s  dominion  into  the  upper  part  of  the  Mesopotamian 
valley,  and  especially  into  the  country  known  in  later  times  as 
Assyria.  The  fact  that  Shamas-Vul,  the  son  of  Ismi-dagon, 
built  a temple  at  Kileh-Sherghat,  implies  necessarily  that  the 
Chaldaeans  at  this  time  bore  sway  in  the  upper  region.  Shamas- 
Vul  appears  to  have  been,  not  the  eldest,  but  the  second  son  of 
the  monarch,  and  must  be  viewed  as  ruling  over  Assyria  in 
the  capacity  of  viceroy,  either  for  his  father  or  his  brother. 
Such  evidence  as  we  possess  of  the  condition  of  Assyria  about 
this  period  seems  to  show  that  it  was  weak  and  insignificant, 
administered  ordinarily  by  Babylonian  satraps  or  governors, 
whose  office  was  one  of  no  great  rank  or  dignity.1 


9 See  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  i. 
Essay  vi.  p.  433,  note  6 

10  If  Sennacherib’s  10th  year  is  b.c. 
692,  Tiglath-Pileser’s  defeat  must  have 
been  in  b.c.  1110.  His  restoration  of 
the  temple  was  certainly  earlier,  for  it 
was  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  reign 
— say  b.c.  1120.  Add  the  60  years 


during  which  the  building  had  been  in 
ruins  and  the  641  during  which  it  had 
stood,  and  we  have  b.c.  1821  for  the 
building  of  the  original  temple  by  Sha- 
mas-Vul. The  date  of  his  father’s  ac- 
cession should  be  at  least  30  years 
earlier — or  b.c.  1851. 

1 Three  or  four  tablets  of  Babylonian 


Chap.  VIII. 


GURGUNA  — NARAM-SIN. 


165 


In  Cbaldaea  Ismi-dagon  was  succeeded  by  a son,  wliose  name 
is  read,  somewhat  doubtfully,  as  Gunguna  or  Gurguna.2  This 
prince  is  known  to  us  especially  as  the  builder  of  the  great 
public  cemeteries  which  now  form  the  most  conspicuous  objects 
among  the  ruins  of  Mugheir,  and  the  construction  of  which  is 
so  remarkable.3  Ismi-dagon  and  his  son  must  have  occupied 
the  Chaldsean  throne  during  most  of  the  later  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  before  our  era — from  about  B.c.  1850  to  B.c. 
1800. 

Hitherto  there  has  been  no  great  difficulty  in  determining  the 
order  of  the  monumental  kings,  from  the  position  of  their  bricks 
in  the  principal  Chaldsean  ruins  and  the  general  character  of 
their  inscriptions.  But  the  relative  place  occupied  in  the  series 
by  the  later  monarchs  is  rendered  very  doubtful  by  their  records 
being  scattered  and  unconnected,  while  their  styles  of  inscrip- 
tion vary  but  slightly.  It  is  most  unfortunate  that  no  writer 
has  left  us  a list  corresponding  in  Babylonian  history  with  that 
which  Manetho  put  on  record  for  Egyptian ; since  we  are  thus 
compelled  to  arrange  our  names  in  an  order  which  rests  on  little 
more  than  conjecture.4 

The  monumental  king  who  is  thought  to  have  approached 
the  nearest  to  Gurguna  is  Haram-Sin,  of  whom  a record  has  been 
discovered  at  Babylon,5  and  who  is  mentioned  in  a late  inscrip- 
tion6 as  the  builder,  in  conjunction  with  his  father,  of  a temple 
at  the  city  of  Agana.  His  date  is  probably  about  b.c.  1750.  The 


satraps  have  been  discovered  at  Kileh- 
Sherghat.  The  titles  assumed  are  said 
to  “ belong  to  the  most  humble  class  of 
dignities.”  (Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the 
author  s Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  448,  note  7.) 

2 For  inscriptions  of  Gurguna,  see 
British  Museum  Series , vol.  i.  pi.  2,  No.  vi. 
Some  doubt  has  been  entertained  as  to 
whether  this  prince  was  the  son  or  the 
grandson  of  Ismi-dagon,  but  on  the 
whole  the  verdict  of  cuneiform  scholars 
has  been  in  favour  of  the  interpretation 
of  these  inscriptions  which  makes  him 
the  son. 

3 See  above,  ch.  v.  pp.  86-90. 

4 Berosus  gave  no  doubt  th^  complete 
list ; but  his  names  have  not  been  pre- 
served to  us.  The  brief  Chaldasan  list 


in  Syncellus  (p.  169)  probably  came 
from  him  ; but  the  names  seem  to  have 
belonged  to  the  first  or  mythical  dynasty. 
One  might  have  hoped  to  obtain  some 
help  from  Ctesias’s  Assyrian  list,  as 
it  went  back  at  least  as  far  as  b.c. 
2182,  when  Assyria  was  a mere  pro- 
vince of  the  Chaldaean  Empire.  But 
it  presents  every  appearance  of  an  ab- 
solute forgery,  being  composed  of  Arian, 
Semitic,  Egyptian,  and  Greek  appella- 
tions, with  a sprinkling  of  terms  bor- 
rowed from  geography. 

5 Brit.  Mus.  Series , vol.  i.  pi.  3,  No.  7. 

6 The  fact  is  recorded  by  Nabonidus 
— the  Labynetus  of  Herodotus — on  the 
famous  Mugheir  cylinder.  {Brit.  Mus. 
Series,  vol.  i.  pi.  69 ; col.  2, 1.  30.) 


THE  FIEST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


1 66 


seat  of  his  court  may  be  conjectured  to  have  been  Babylon, 
which  had  by  this  time  risen  into  metropolitan  consequence.  It 
is  evident  that,  as  time  went  on,  the  tendency  was  to  remove  the 
seat  of  government  and  empire  to  a greater  distance  from  the 
sea.  The  early  monarchs  reign  at  Ur  (Mugheir),  and  leave  no 
traces  of  themselves  further  north  than  Niffer.  Sin- Shad  a holds 
his  court  at  Erech  (Warka),  twenty-five  miles  above  Mugheir; 
while  Naram-Sin  is  connected  with  the  still  more  northern  city 
of  Babylon.  We  shall  find  a similar  tendency  in  Assyria,  as  it 
rose  into  power.  In  both  cases  we  may  regard  the  fact  as 
indicative  of  a gradual  spread  of  empire  toivards  the  north,  and 
of  the  advance  of  civilisation  and  settled  government  in  that 
direction. 

A king,  who  disputes  the  palm  of  antiquity  with  Naram-Sin, 
has  left  various  records  at  Erech  or  Warka,7  which  appears  to 
have  been  his  capital  city.  It  is  proposed  to  call  him  Sin-Shada.8 
He  constructed,  or  rather  re-built,  the  upper  terrace  of  the 
Bowariyeh  ruin,  or  great  temple,  which  Urukh  raised  at  Warka 
to  Beltis ; and  his  bricks  are  found  in  the  doorway  of  another 
large  ruin  (the  Wuswas)  at  the  same  place ; it  is  believed,  how- 
ever, that  in  this  latter  building  they  are  not  in  situ,  but  have 
been  transferred  from  some  earlier  edifice.9  His  reign  fell  pro- 
bably in  the  latter  part  of  the  18th  century  b.c. 

Several  monarchs  of  the  Sin  series — i.  e.  monarchs  into  whose 
names  the  word  Sin,  the  name  of  the  Moon-god,  enters  as  an 
element — now  present  themselves.  The  most  important  of  them 
has  been  called  Zur-Sin.  This  king  erected  some  buildings  at 
Mugheir;  but  he  is  best  known  as  the  founder  of  the  very 
curious  town  whose  ruins  bear  at  the  present  day  the  name  of 
Abu-Shahrein.  A description  of  the  principal  buildings  at  this 
site  has  been  already  given.30  They  exhibit  certain  improve- 
ments on  the  architecture  of  the  earlier  times,  and  appear  to 
have  been  very  richly  ornamented,  at  least  in  parts.  At  the 


7 Brit.  Mus.  Series , vol.  i.  pi.  3,  No.  8. 

8 Sin-Shada  seems  to  have  imme- 
diately succeeded  a queen.  He  calls 

himself  “ son  of  Bilat  * * at,”  which  is 


certainly  a female  name. 

9 Loftys,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  ch.  xvi. 
p.  184. 

10  See  above,  pp.  79,  80. 


Chap.  VIII. 


ARABIAN  DYNASTY. 


167 


same  time  they  contain  among  their  debris  remarkable  proofs 
of  the  small  advance  which  had  as  yet  been  made  in  some  of 
the  simplest  arts.  Flint  knives  and  other  implements,  stone 
hatchets,  chisels,  and  nails,  are  abundant  in  the  ruins;  and 
though  the  use  of  metal  is  not  unknown,  it  seems  to  have  been 
comparatively  rare.  When  a metal  is  found,  it  is  either  gold  or 
bronze,  no  trace  of  iron  (except  in  ornaments  of  the  person) 
appearing  in  any  of  the  Chaldean  remains.  Zur-Sin,  Rim-Sin,1 
and  three  or  four  other  monarchs  of  the  Sin  series,  whose  names 
are  imperfect  or  uncertain,  may  be  assigned  to  the  period  included 
between  b.c.  1700  and  b.c.  1546. 

Another  monarch,  and  the  only  other  monumental  name  that 
we  can  assign  to  Berosus’s  fourth  dynasty,  is  a certain  Nur-Vul, 
who  appears  by  the  Ohaldsean  sale-tablets  to  have  been  the 
immediate  predecessor  of  Rim-Sin,  the  last  king  of  the  Sin 
series.  Nur-Vul  has  left  no  buildings  or  inscriptions;  and  we 
seem  to  see  in  the  absence  of  all  important  monuments  at  this 
time  a period  of  depression,  such  as  commonly  in  the  history  of 
nations  precedes  and  prepares  the  way  for  a new  dynasty  or  a 
conquest. 

The.  remaining  monumental  kings  belong  almost  certainly  to 
the  fifth,  or  Arabian,  dynasty  of  Berosus,  to  which  he  assigns 
the  period  of  245  years — from  about  b.c.  1546  to  b.c.  1300. 
That  the  list  comprises  as  many  as  fifteen  names,  whereas 
Berosus  speaks  of  nine  Arabian  kings  only,  need  not  surprise  us, 
since  it  is  not  improbable  that  Berosus  may  have  omitted  kings 
who  reigned  for  less  than  a year.2  To  arrange  the  fifteen  monarchs3 
in  chronological  order  is,  unfortunately,  impossible.  Only  three 
of  them  have  left  monuments.  The  names  of  the  others  are 


1 Rim-Sin  has  left  a very  fine  inscrip- 
tion on  a small  black  tablet,  found  at. 
Mugheir.  (Brit.  Mas.  Series,  vol.  i. 
pi.  3 ; No.  10.) 

2 As  Ptolemy  did  in  his  Canon. 

3 Some  writers  have  exaggerated  the 
number  of  the  names  to  twenty-four  or 
twenty-five.  (See  Oppert,  Expedition 
scientifique  en  Mesopotamie , vol.  i.  p. 
276 ; and  compare  Lenormant,  Manuel 
d’Histoire  ancienne  de  V Orient,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  25,  32.)  But  this  is  by  misunder- 


standing a tablet  on  which  nine  of  them 
occur.  M.  Lenormant  obtains  thirteen 
successors  to  Khammu-rabi  (p.  32)  by 
not  seeing  that  the  tablet  is  bilingual, 
and  counting  in  five  translations  of 
names  which  he  has  already  reckoned. 
M.  Oppert  does  not  fall  into  this  error, 
but  unduly  enlarges  his  royal  list  by 
counting  twelve  names  from  the  ob- 
verse of  the  tablet,  which  there  is  no 
ground  for  regarding  as  royal  names 
at  all.  • 


i 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


1 68 


found  on  linguistic  and  other  tablets,  in  a connection  which 
rarely  enables  us  to  determine  anything  with  respect  to  their 
relative  priority  or  posteriority.4  We  can,  however,  definitely 
place  seven  names,  two  at  the  beginning  and  five  towards  the 
end  of  the  series,  thus  leaving  only  eight  whose  position  in  the 
list  is  undetermined. 

The  series  commences  with  a great  king,  named  Khammu- 
rabi,  who  was  probably  the  founder  of  the  dynasty,  the  “ Arab  ” 
chief,  who,  taking  advantage  of  the  weakness  and  depression  of 
Chaldma  under  the  later  monarchs  of  the  fourth  dynasty,  by  in- 
trigue or  conquest  established  his  dominion  over  the  country,  and 
left  the  crown  to  his  descendants.  Khammu-rabi  is  especially 
remarkable  as  having  been  the  first  (so  far  as  appears)  of  the 
Babylonian  monarchs  to  conceive  the  notion  of  carrying  out  a 
system  of  artificial  irrigation  in  his  dominions,  by  means  of  a 
canal  derived  from  one  of  the  great  rivers.  The  Nahar -Khammu- 
rabi  (“  River  of  Iihammu-rabi  ”),  whereof  he  boasts  in  one  of 
his  inscriptions,5  was  no  doubt,  as  he  states,  “ a blessing  to 
the  Babylonians” — it tc  changed  desert  plains  into  well- watered 
fields ; it  spread  around  fertility  and  abundance  ” — it  brought  a 
whole  district,  previously  barren,  into  cultivation,  and  it  set  an 
example,  which  the  best  of  the  later  monarchs  followed,  of  a 
mode  whereby  the  productiveness  of  the  country  might  be 
increased  to  an  almost  inconceivable  extent. 

Khammu-rabi  was  also  distinguished  as  a builder.  He  re- 
paired the  great  temple  of  the  Sun  at  Senkereh,6  and  con- 
structed for  himself  a new  palace  at  Kalwadha,  or  Chilmad,  not 


4 Eight  royal  names  follow  Khammu- 
rabi  on  the  tablet  above  mentioned 
(see  last  note).  It  might  have  been  sup- 
posed that  they  would  occur  in  chrono- 
logical order.  But,  in  fact,  Khammu- 
rabi’s  successor,  his  son,  Samsu-iluna, 
is  omitted ; and  Kurri-galzu,  the  son  of 
Purna-puriyas,  who  was  the  third  king 
after  his  father,  is  put  in  the  fifth  place 
before  him.  The  order  of  the  names 
cannot,  therefore,  be  chronological. 

5 This  inscription  is  on  a white  stone 
in  the  Museum  of  the  Louvre.  It  has 

been  published  with  a comment  by  M. 


Menant  ( Inscriptions  de  Hammourahi, 
roi  de  Baby  lone,  Paris,  1863),  and 
has  also  been  translated  by  M.  Oppert 
in  the  Expedition , vol.  i.  pp.  267,  268. 
M.  Lenormant  assumes  without  reason 
{Manuel,  vol.  ii.  p.  31)  the  identity  of 
the  Naliar-Khammurabi  with  the  JS/ahr- 
Malcha  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

6  See  Brit.  Mus.  Series,  vol.  i.  pi.  4, 
No.  xv. ; Inscr.  2 (translated  by  M.  Op- 
pert,  Expedition,  vol.  i.  p.  267) ; and 
compare  the  cylinder  of  Nabonidus. 
{Brit.  M.  Series , vol.  i.  pi.  69,  col.  ii. 
1.  1.) 


Chap.  VIII. 


ARABIAN  DYNASTY. 


169 


far  from  the  modern  Baghdad.7  His  inscriptions  have  been  found 
at  Babylon,  at  Zerghul,  and  at  Tel-Sifr ; and  it  is  thought  pro- 
bable that  he  made  Babylon  his  ordinary  place  of  residence. 
His  reign  probably  covered  the  space  from  about  b.c.  1546  to 
B.c.  1520,  when  he  left  his  crown  to  his  son,  Samsu-iluna.  Of 
this  monarch  our  notices  are  exceedingly  scanty.  We  know 
him  only  from  the  Tel-Sifr  clay  tablets,  several  of  which  are 
dated  by  the  years  of  his  reign.  He  held  the  crown  probably 
from  about  b.c.  1520  to  b.c.  1500. 

About  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  this  we  come  upon  a group 
of  names,  belonging  almost  certainly  to  this  same  dynasty,  which 
possess  a peculiar  interest,  inasmuch  as  they  serve  to  connect 
the  closing  period  of  the  First,  or  Chaldsean,  with  the  opening 
portion  of  the  Second,  or  Assyrian,  Monarchy.  A succession  of 
five  Babylonian  monarchs  is  mentioned  on  an  Assyrian  tablet, 
the  object  of  which  is  to  record  the  synchronous  history  of  the 
two  countries.8  These  monarchs  are  contemporary  with  inde- 
pendent Assyrian  princes,  and  have  relations  towards  them  which 
are  sometimes  peaceful,  sometimes  warlike.  Kara-in-das,  the 
first  of  the  five,  is  on  terms  of  friendship  with  Asshur-bel-nisi-su, 
king  of  Assyria,  and  concludes  with  him  a treaty  of  alliance. 
This  treaty  is  renewed  between  his  successor,  Purna-puriyas, 
and  Buzur-Asshur,  the  successor  of  Asshur-bel-nisi-su  on  the 
throne  of  Assyria.  Hot  long  afterwards  a third  Assyrian  monarch, 
Asshur-upallit,  obtains  the  crown,  and  Purna-puriyas  not  only 
continues  on  the  old  terms  of  amity  with  him,  but  draws  the 
ties  which  unite  the  two  royal  families  closer  by  marrying 
Asshur-upallit’s  daughter.  The  issue  of  this  marriage  is  a prince 
named  Kara-khar-das,  who,  on  the  death  of  Purna-puriyas, 
ascends  the  throne  of  Babylon.  But  now  a revolution  occurs. 
A certain  Hazi-bugas  rises  in  revolt,  puts  Kara-khar-das  to  death, 
and  succeeds  in  making  himself  king.  Hereupon  Asshur-upallit 
takes  up  arms,  invades  Babylonia,  defeats  and  kills  Hazi-bugas, 
and  places  upon  the  throne  a brother  of  the  murdered  Kara- 
khar-das,  a younger  son  of  Purna-puriyas,  by  name  Kurri-galzu, 


7 Brit.  M.  Series , vol.  i.  pi.  4,  No.  xv.  Ins.  3. 


8 Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  65. 


7 o 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YIII. 


or  Durri-galzu.  These  events  may  be  assigned  with  much  pro- 
bability to  the  period  between  b.c.  1440  and  b.c.  1380.10 

Of  the  five  consecutive  monarchs  presented  to  our  notice  in 
this  interesting  document,  two  are  known  to  us  by  their  own 
inscriptions.  Memorials  of  Purna-puriyas  and  Kurri-galzu,  very 
similar  in  their  general  character,  have  been  found  in  various 
parts  of  Chaldaea.  Those  of  Purna-puriyas  come  from  Senkereh,1 
the  ancient  Larsa,  and  consist  of  bricks,  showing  that  he  repaired 
the  great  temple  of  the  Sun  at  that  city — which  was  originally 
built  by  Urukh.  Kurri-galzu’ s memorials  comprise  bricks  from 

Mugheir  (Ur)  and  Akker- 
kuf,2  together  with  his  sig- 
net-seal, which  was  found 
at  Baghdad  in  the  year 
I860.3  It  also  appears  by 
an  inscription  of  Naboni- 
dus4  that  he  repaired  a 
temple  at  the  city  of 

But  the  chief  fame  of  Kurri-galzu  arises  from  his  having  been 
the  founder  of  an  important  city.  The  remarkable  remains  at 
Akkerkuf,  of  which  an  account  has  been  given  in  a former 
chapter,5  mark  the  site  of  a town  of  his  erection.  It  is  conjec- 
tured with  some  reason  that  this  place  is  the  Dur-Kurri-galzu  of 
the  later  Assyrian  inscriptions — a place  of  so  much  consequence 
in  the  time  of  Sargon  that  he  calls  it  “ the  key  of  the  country.” 

The  remaining  monarchs,  who  are  on  strong  grounds  of  pro- 


Signet-seal  of  Kurri-galzu,  King  of  Babylon. 

Agana,  and  left  an  inscription  there. 


10  The  position  of  the  kings,  Asshur- 
bel-nisi-su,  Buzur-Asshur,  and  Asshur- 
upallit,  in  the  Assyrian  list,  has  been  defi- 
nitely fixed  by  Mr.  G.  Smith’s  discovery  in 
1869  of  an  inscription  of  Pudiel,  in  which 
he  states  that  Asshur-upallit  was  his 
grandfather.  We  have  thus  now  a con- 
tinuous succession  from  Asshur-bel-nisi- 
su  to  Tiglathi-Nin,  the  conqueror  of 
Babylon ; and  as  this  conquest  is  fixed 
to  about  b.c.  1300,  we  can  count  back 
to  Asshur-bel-nisi-su  by  allowing  an 
average  of  twenty  years  to  a reign,  and 
approximately  fix  his  date  as  from  b.c. 


1440  to  1420. 

1 Brit.  Mus.  Series , vol.  i.  pi.  4,  No. 
xiii.  2 Ibid.  pi.  4,  No.  xiv. 

3 The  inscription  on  the  seal  is  read 
as  follows : — “ Kurri-galzu,  king  of 

son  of  Purna-puriyas,  king 

of  Babylon.”  (See  Brit.  Mus.  Series , 
vol.  i.,  Table  of  Contents,  pi.  4,  No.  xiv.) 

4 Ibid.  pi.  69,  col.  ii.  1.  32. 

5 See  above,  p.  21.  The  bricks  of 
Kurri-galzu  are  not  found,  however, 
in  the  great yuin,  which  is  most  pro- 
bably a Parthian  work. 


Chap.  VIII. 


TABLE  OF  KINGS. 


171 


Kings  of  Chaldea. 


Dynasty. 


b.c.  to  B.C. 


Kings. 


Events,  &c. 


I. 

(Chaldsean) 


II. 

(Elamite) 


III. 

IV. 

(Chaldsean) 


V. 

(Arab) 


2286 


2052 

2004 


1546 


2286 


2052 


2004 

1546 


1301 


1300 


Nimrod  . . 

* * * * 

* * * * 

Urukh 
Ilgi  (son). 

* * * * 

Kudur-N  akhunta 
(Zoro-aster) 


Kudur-Lagamer  . . 

* * * * 
Sinti-shil-khak. 
Kudur-Mabuk  (son) 
Arid-Sin  (son). 


* * * * 

* * * # 

* * * * 

Ismi-dagon 

Gurguna  (son) 

* * * * 

Naram-Sin. 

* * * * 

Bilat  * * at  (a  queen). 
Sin-Shada  (son). 

* * * * 

Zur-Sin. 

* * * * 

Nur-Vul 

Rim-Sin 

Khammu-rabi 
Samsu-iluna  (son) 


Kara-in-das  . . 

Purna-puriyas 

Kara-kkar-das  (son) 
Nazi-bugas 
Kig-ri-galzu  (brother 
of  Kara-khar-das) 


Founds  the  Empire. 

Builds  numerous  temples. 
Conquers  Chaldsea,  b.c.  2286. 


(Contemporary  with  Abra- 
ham. Makes  two  expedi- 
| tions  into  Syria. 


Wars  in  Syria. 


Reigns  from  about  b.c.  1850 
to  1830. 

His  brother,  Shamas-Yul, 
rules  in  Assyria. 


I Reigns  from  about  b.c.  1586 
\ to  1566. 

Reigns  from  about  b.c.  1566 
to  1546. 

Reigns  from  about  b.c.  1546 
to  1520. 

Reigns  from  about  b.c.  1520 
to  1500. 


Contemporary  with  Asshur- 
bel-nisi-su,  ab.  b.c.  1440. 
Contemporary  with  Buzur- 
Asshur,  b.c.  1420-/1400. 

Contemporary  with  Asshur- 
upallit,  b.c.  1400-1380. 


Chaldsea  conquered  by 
Tiglathi-Nin. 


172 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


bability,  etymological  and  other,  assigned  to  this  dynasty  are 
Saga-raktiyas,6  the  founder  of  a Temple  of  the  male  and  female 
Sun  at  Sippara,7  Ammidi-kaga,  Simbar-sikhu,  Kharbi-sikhu, 
Ulam-puriyas,  Nazi-urdas,  Mili-sikhu,  and  Kara-kharbi.  Nothing 
is  known  at  present  of  the  position  which  any  of  these  monarchs 
held  in  the  dynasty,  or  of  their  relationship  to  the  kings  pre- 
viously mentioned,  or  to  each  other.  Most  of  them  are  known 
to  us  simply  from  their  occurrence  in  a bilingual  list  of  kings, 
together  with  Khammu-rabi,  Kurri-galzu,  and  Purna-puriyas. 
The  list  in  question  appears  not  to  be  chronological.® 

Modern  research  has  thus  supplied  us  with  memorials  (or  at 
any  rate  with  the  names)  of  some  thirty  kings,  who  ruled  in  the 
country  properly  termed  Chaldaea  at  a very  remote'  date.  Their 
antiquity  is  evidenced  by  the  character  of  their  buildings  and 
of  their  inscriptions,  which  are  unmistakably  rude  and  archaic. 
It  is  further  indicated  by  the  fact  that  they  are  the  builders  of 
certainly  the  most  ancient  edifices  whereof  the  country  contains 
any  trace.  The  probable  connexion  of  two  of  them 9 with  the 
only  king  known  previously  from  good  authority  to  have  reigned 
in  the  country  during  the  primitive  ages  confirms  the  conclusion 
drawn  from  the  appearance  of  the  remains  themselves  ; which  is 
further  strengthened  by  the  monumental  dates  assigned  to  two 10 
of  them,  which  place  them  respectively  in  the  twenty-third  and 
the  nineteenth  century  before  our  era.  That  the  kings  belong 
to  one  series,  and  (speaking  broadly)  to  one  time,  is  evidenced 
by  the  similarity  of  the  titles  which  they  use,  by  their  unin- 
terrupted worship  of  the  same  gods,  and  by  the  general  resem- 
blance of  the  language  and  mode  of  writing  which  they  employ.11 


6 Saga-raktiyas  is  by  some  regarded 
as  the  father  of  Naram-Sin  (Oppert, 
Expedition , vol.  i.  p.  273,  note  2 ; Le- 
normant,  Manuel , vol.  ii.  p.  27).  But 
the  foundation  of  this  notion  is  the 
identification  of  a temple  bearing  the 
name  of  Ulmas  at  Agana,  with  a temple 
of  the  same  name  at  Sippara.  Agana 
and  Sippara  must,  however,  have  been 
distinct  cities. 

7 Brit.  Mus.  Series , vol.  i.  pi.  69,  col. 

iii.  1.  20.  8 See  above,  p.  168,  note  4. 

9  Kudur-Nakhunta,  and  Kudur- 


Mabuk,  who  are  certainly  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  Chedor-laomer  (Kudur- 
Lagamer)  of  Scripture.  (See  above,  pp. 
162,  163.) 

10  Kudur-Nakhunta  and  Ismi-dagon. 
(See  page  164.) 

11  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  says : — “ All  the 
kings  whose  monuments  are  found  in 
ancient  Chaldaea  used  the  same  language 
and  the  same  form  of  writing ; they 
professed  the  same  religion,  inhabited 
the  same  cities,  and  followed  the  same 
traditions.  Temples  built  in  the  earliest 


Chap.  VIII. 


PROBABLE  NUMBER  OF  THE  KINGS. 


173 


That  the  time  to  which  they  belong  is  anterior  to  the  rise  of 
Assyria  to  greatness  appears  from  the  synchronism  of  the  later 
monarchs  of  the  Chaldaean  with  the  earliest  of  the  Assyrian  list, 
as  well  as  from  the  fact  that  the  names  borne  by  the  Babylonian 
kings  after  Assyria  became  the  leading  power  in  the  country 
are  not  only  different,  but  of  a different  type.  If  it  be  objected 
that  the  number  of  thirty  kings  is  insufficient  for  the  space  over 
which  they  have  in  our  scheme  been  spread,  we  may  answer 
that  it  has  never  been  supposed  by  any  one  that  the  twenty-nine 
or  thirty  kings,  of  whom  distinct  mention  has  been  made  in  the 
foregoing  account,  are  a complete  list  of  all  the  Chaldaean  sove- 
reigns. On  the  contrary,  it  is  plain  that  they  are  a very  incom- 
plete list,  like  that  which  Herodotus  gives  of  the  kings  of  Egypt, 
or  that  which  the  later  Bomans  possessed  of  their  early  monarchs. 
The  monuments  themselves  present  indications  of  several  other 
names  of  kings,  belonging  evidently  to  the  same  series,1  which 
are  too  obscure  or  too  illegible  for  transliteration.  And  there 
may,  of  course,  have  been  many  others  of  whom  no  traces  remain, 
or  of  whom  none  have  been  as  yet  found.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  may  be  observed,  that  the  number  of  the  early  Chaldaean 
kings  reported  by  Polyhistor2  is  preposterous.  If  sixty-eight 
consecutive  monarchs  held  the  Chaldaean  throne  between  B.c. 
2286  and  b.c.  1546,  they  must  have  reigned  on  an  average  less 
than  eleven  years  apiece.  Nay,  if  forty-nine  ruled  between 
B.c.  2001  and  b.c.  1546,  covering  a space  of  little  more  than  four 
centuries  and  a half — which  is  what  Berosus  is  made  to  assert — 
these  later  monarchs  cannot  even  have  reigned  so  long  as  ten 
years  each,  an  average  which  may  be  pronounced  quite  impossible 
in  a settled  monarchy  such  as  the  Chaldaean.  The  probability 
would  seem  to  be  that  Berosus  has  been  misreported,  his  numbers 
having  suffered  corruption  during  their  passage  through  so  many 
hands,3  and  being  in  this  instance  quite  untrustworthy.  We 


times  received  the  veneration  of  suc- 
cessive generations,  and  were  repaired 
and  adorned  by  a long  series  of  monarchs, 
even  down  to  the  time  of  the  Semitic 
Nabonidus.”  (Rawlinson’s  Herodotus , 
vol.  i.  Essay  vi.  p 441.) 


1 See  the  author’s  Herodotus,  vol.  i. 
p.  440. 

2 See  the  fragments  of  this  writer 
preserved  by  Eusebius  ( Chron . Can. 
pars  i.  c.  4). 

3 The  words  of  Polyhistor  are  re- 


T74 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


may  conjecture  that  the  actual  number  of  reigns  which  he 
intended  to  allow  his  fourth  dynasty  was  nineteen,4  or  at  the 
utmost  twenty-nine,  the  former  of  which  numbers  would  give 
the  common  average  of  twenty-four  .years,  while  the  latter  would 
produce  the  less  usual  but  still  possible  one  of  sixteen  years. 

The  monarchy,  which  we  have  had  under  review,  is  one,  no 
doubt,  rather  curious  from  its  antiquity  than  illustrious  from 
its  great  names,  or  admirable  for  the  extent  of  its  dominions. 
Less  ancient  than  the  Egyptian,  it  claims  the  advantage  of 
priority  over  every  empire  or  kingdom  which  has  grown  up  upon 
the  soil  of  Asia.  The  Arian,  Turanian,  and  even  the  Semitic 
tribes  appear  to. have  been  in  the  nomadic  condition,  when  the 
Cushite  settlers  in  Lower  Babylonia  betook  themselves  to  agri- 
culture, erected  temples,  built  cities,  and  established  a strong 
and  settled  government.  The  leaven  which  was  to  spread  by 
degrees  through  the  Asiatic  peoples  was  first  deposited  on  the 
shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf  at  the  mouth  of  the  “ Great  River ; ” 5 
and  hence  civilisation,  science,  letters,  art,  extended  themselves 
northward,  and  eastward,  and  westward.  Assyria,  Media,  Semitic 
Babylonia,  Persia,  as  they  derived  from  Chaldsea  the  character 
of  their  writing,6  so  were  they  indebted  to  the  same  country  for 
their  general  notions  of  government  and  administration,  for  their 
architecture,  their  decorative  art,  and  still  more  for  their  science 
and  literature.  Each  people  no  doubt  modified  in  some  measure 
the  boon  received,  adding  more  or  less  of  its  own  to  the  common 
inheritance.  But  Chaldsea  stands  forth  as  the  great  parent  and 


ported  to  us  by  Eusebius  in  a work  (his 
Chronica)  the  original  of  which  is  lost, 
and  which  we  have  only  in  an  Armenian 
version.  Polyhistor  himself  does  not 
appear  to  have  read  the  work  of  Be- 
rosus.  He  derives  his  knowledge  of  it 
from  Apollodorus.  Thus  we  have  Be- 
rosus  at  fifth  hand — through  Apollo- 
dorus, Polyhistor,  Eusebius,  and  the 
Armenian  translator.  Hence  the  ex- 
cellent advice  of  C.  Muller — “Igitur 
cum  per  tot  manus  migraverint  quae  ad 
nos  perdurarunt  fragmenta,  haud  mira- 
beris  variis  modis  verba  Berosi  defor- 
mata  esse,  cavendumque  ne  Beroso  im- 
putemus  quae  sunt  imputanda  excerp- 


toribus.”  ( Fragm . Hist.  Gr.  vol.  ii. 

p.  496.) 

4 The  change  of  A0  into  A0  is  one 
very  likely  to  occur,  and  has  numerous 
parallels. 

5 Gen.  xv.  18  ; Deut.  i.  7 ; Josh.  i.  4. 

6 The  alphabets,  as  well  as  the 
languages,  of  these  various  races  differ ; 
but,  as  all  assume  the  wedge  as  the 
ultimate  element  out  of  which  their 
letters  are  formed,  it  seems  almost  cer- 
tain that  they  learnt  the  art  of  writing 
from  one  another.  If  so,  Chaldaea  has 
on  every  ground  the  best  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  the  teacher  of  the  others. 


Chap.  VIII. 


GENERAL  RESULTS. 


175 


original  inventress  of  Asiatic  civilisation,  without  any  rival  that 
can  reasonably  dispute  her  claims. 

*The  great  men  of  the  Empire  are  Nimrod,  Urukh,  and  Chedor- 
laorner.  Nimrod,  the  founder,  has  the  testimony  of  Scripture 
that  he  was  44  a mighty  one  in  the  earth  7 44  a mighty  hunter ; ” 8 
the  establisher  of  a 44  kingdom,”  when  kingdoms  had  scarcely 
begun  to  he  known  ; the  builder  of  four  great  and  famous  cities, 
44  Babel,  and  Erech,  and  Accad,  and  Calneh,  in  the  land  of 
Shinar,”9  or  Mesopotamia.  To  him  belongs  the  merit  of  selecting 
a site  peculiarly  fitted  for  the  development  of  a great  power  in 
the  early  ages  of  the  world,10  and  of  binding  men  together  into 
a community  which  events  proved  to  possess  within  it  the  ele- 
ments of  prosperity  and  permanence.  Whether  he  had,  indeed, 
the  rebellious  and  apostate  character  which  numerous  traditions, 
Jewish,  Arabian,  and  Armenian,1  assign  to  him;  whether  he 
was  in  reality  concerned  in  the  building  of  the  tower  related  in 
the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,2  w7e  have  no  means 
of  positively  determining.  The  language  of  Scripture  with 
regard  to  Nimrod  is  laudatory  rather  than  the  contrary ; 3 and 
it  would  seem  to  have  been  from  a misapprehension  of  the  nexus 
of  the  Mosaic  narrative  that  the  traditions  above  mentioned 
originated.4  Nimrod,  44  the  mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord,”  had 


7 Gen.  x.  8.  8 lb.  verse  9. 

9 lb.  verse  10. 

10  In  later  times,  when  civilisation 
was  more  advanced,  less  fruitful  tracts 
may,  by  calling  forth  men’s  powers, 
have  produced  the  most  puissant  races 
(see  Herod,  ix.  ad  fin.)  ; but  in  the  first 
ages  only  fertile  regions  could  nurture 
and  develop  greatness.  Elsewhere  man’s 
life  was  a struggle  for  bare  existence. 

1 Josephus  makes  Nimrod  the  prime 
mover  in  the  building  of  the  tower  {Ant. 
Jud.  i.  4,  § 2).  The  Targums  generally 
take  the  same  view.  Some  of  the  Arabic 
traditions  have  been  already  mentioned. 
(Supra,  p.  154,  note6.)  The  Armenian 
account  will  be  found  in  Moses  of  Cho- 
rene,  who,  identifying  Nimrod  with 
Belus,  proceeds  to  describe  him  as  the 
chief  of  the  Giants,  by  whom  the  tower 
was  built,  proud  and  fierce,  and  of  in- 
satiable ambition,  engaged  in  perpetual 


wars  with  his  neighbours.  {Hist.  Armen. 
i.  6-10.)  2 Gen.  xi.  1-9. 

3 Nimrod  is  called  “ a mighty  one  in 
the  earth,”  and  “ a mighty  hunter 
before  the  Lord.”  Many  commentators 
have  observed  that  the  phrase  in  italics 
is  almost  always  used  in  a good  sense, 
implying  the  countenance  and  favour 
of  God,  and  his  blessing  on  the  work 
which  is  said  to  have  been  done  “ before” 
him,  or  “ in  his  sight.” 

4 Commentators  seem  generally  to 
have  supposed  that  the  building,  or 
attempt  to  build,  described  in  Gen.  xi. 
1-9,  is  the  building  of  Babel  ascribed  to 
Nimrod  in  Gen.  x.  10.  But  this  cannot 
be  so : for  in  Gen.  xi.  we  are  told,  “ they 
left  off  to  build  the  city.”  The  truth 
seems  to  be  that  the  tenth  chapter  is 
parenthetical,  and  the  author  in  ch.  xi. 
takes  up  the  narrative  from  ch.  ix.,  going 
back  to  a time  not  long  after  the  Deluge. 


i/6 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VIII. 


not  in  the  days  of  Moses  that  ill  reputation  which  attached  to 
him  in  later  ages,  when  he  Avas  regarded  as  the  great  Titan  or 
Giant,  who  made  war  upon  the  gods,  and  who  was  at  once  flie 
builder  of  the  tower,  and  the  persecutor  who  forced  Abraham  to 
quit  his  original  country.  It  i&  at  least  doubtful  whether  we 
ought  to  allowr  any  weight  at  all  to  the  additions  and  embellish- 
ments with  which  later  writers,  so  much  wiser  than  Moses,  have 
overlaid  the  simplicity  of  his  narrative. 

Urukh,  whose  fame  may  possibly  have  reached  the  Romans,5 
Avas  the  great  Chaldsean  architect.  To  him  belongs,  apparently, 
the  conception  of  the  Babylonian  temple,  with  its  rectangular 
base,  carefully  placed  so  as  to  present  its  angles  to  the  four 
cardinal  points,  its  receding  stages,  its  buttresses,  its  drains,  its 
sloped  Avails,  its  external  staircases  for  ascent,  and  its  ornamental 
shrine  croAvning  the  whole.  At  any  rate,  if  he  was  not  the  first 
to  conceive  and  erect  such  structures,  he  set  the  example  of 
building  them  on  such  a scale  and  with  such  solidity  as  to  secure 
their  long  continuance,  and  render  them  well  nigh  imperishable. 
There  is  no  appearance  in  all  Chaldsea,  so  far  as  it  has  been 
explored,  of  any  building  which  can  be  even  probably  assigned 
to  a date  anterior  to  Urukh.  The  attempted  tower  wTas  no  doubt 
earlier;  and  it  may  have  been  a building  of  the  same  type;6 
but  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  any  remnant,  or  indeed 
any  trace,  of  this  primitive  edifice,  has  continued  to  exist  to  our 
day.  The  structures  of  the  most  archaic  character  throughout 
Chaldaea  are,  one  and  all,  the  work  of  King  Urukh ; who  was 
not  content  to  adorn  his  metropolitan  city  only  with  one  of  the 
new  edifices,  but  added  a similar  ornament  to  each  of  the  great 
cities  within  his  empire.7 

The  great  builder  was  followed  shortly  by  the  great  conqueror. 
Kudur-Lagamer,  the  Elamitic  prince,  who,  more  than  twenty 
centuries  before  our  era,  having  extended  his  dominion  over 
Babylonia  and  the  adjoining  regions,  marched  an  army  a dis- 


5 If,  that  is,  the  Orchamus  of  Ovid, 
is  really  to  he  connected  with  the  word 
now  read  as  Urukh. 

6 See  the  article  on  the  “ Tower  of 


Babel”  in  Smith’s  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible , vol.  i.  pp.  158-160. 

7  See  above,  p.  156. 


Chap.  Till. 


GREAT  MEN  OF  THE  EMPIRE. 


1 77 


tance  of  1200  miles 8 from  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  held  Palestine  and  Syria  in  subjection  for  twelve 
years,  thus  effecting  conquests  which  were  not  again  made  from 
the  same  quarter  till  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  fifteen  or 
sixteen  hundred  years  afterwards,  has  a good  claim  to  be  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  most  remarkable  personages  in  the  world’s 
history — being,  as  he  is,  the  forerunner  and  prototype  of  all 
those  great  Oriental  conquerors  who  from  time  to  time  have 
built  up  vast  empires  in  Asia  out  of  heterogeneous  materials, 
which  have  in  a longer  or  a shorter  space  successively  crumbled 
to  decay.  At  a time  when  the  kings  of  Egypt  had  never  ventured 
beyond  their  borders,  unless  it  were  for  a foray  in  Ethiopia,9 
and  when  in  Asia  no  monarch  had  held  dominion  over  more  than 
a few  petty  tribes,  and  a few  hundred  miles  of  territory,  he  con- 
ceived the  magnificent  notion  of  binding  into  one  the  manifold 
nations  inhabiting  the. vast  tract  which  lies  between  the  Zagros 
mountain-range  and  the  Mediterranean.  Lord  by  inheritance 
(as  we  may  presume)  of  Elam  and  Chaldaea  or  Babylonia,  he  was 
not  content  with  these  ample  tracts,  but,  coveting  more,  pro- 
ceeded boldly  on  a career  of  conquest  up  the  Euphrates  valley, 
and  through  Syria,  into  Palestine.  Successful  here,  he  governed 
for  twelve  years  dominions  extending  near  a thousand  miles 
from  east  to  west,  and  from  north  to  south  probably  not  much 
short  of  five  hundred.  It  is  true  that  he  was  not  able  to  hold 
this  large  extent  of  territory ; but  the  attempt  and  the  success 
temporarily  attending  it  are  memorable  circumstances,  and  were 
probably  long  held  in  remembrance  through  Western  Asia,  where 
they  served  as  a stimulus  and  incentive  to  the  ambition  of  later 
monarchs. 

These,  then,  are  the  great  men  of  the  Chaldsean  empire.  Its 
extent,  as  we  have  seen,  varied  greatly  at  different  periods. 
Under  the  kings  of  the  first  dynasty — to  which  Urukh  and  Ugi 
belonged — it  was  probably  confined  to  the  alluvium,  which  seems 


s The  march  would  necessarily . he 
along  the  Euphrates  to  the  latitude 
(nearly)  of  Aleppo,  and  then  down 
Syria  to  the  Dead  Sea.  This  is  1200 
miles.  The  direct  distance  by  the  desert 

VOL.  I. 


is  not  more  than  800  miles;  but  the 
desert  cannot  be  crossed  by  an  army. 

9 See  the  “ Historical  Essay  ” of  Sir 
G.  Wilkinson,  in  the  author’s  Herodotus, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  341-351. 

N 


73 


THE  FIRST  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YIII. 


then  to  have  been  not  more  than  300  miles  in  length  along  the 
course  of  the  rivers,10  and  which  is  about  70  or  80  miles  in  breadth 
from  the  Tigris  to  the  Arabian  desert.  In  the  course  of  the 
second  dynasty  it  received  a vast  increase,  being  carried  in  one 
direction  to  the  Elamitic  mountains,  and  in  another  to  the  Medi- 
terranean, by  the  conquests  of  Kudur-Nakhunta  and  Chedor- 
laomer.  On  the  defeat  of  the  latter  prince  it  again  contracted, 
though  to  what  extent  we  have  no  means  of  determining.  It  is 
probable  that  Elam  or  Susiana,  and  not  unlikely  that  the 
Euphrates  valley,  for  a considerable  distance  above  Hit,  formed 
parts  of  the  Chaldsean  Empire  after  the  loss  of  Syria  and  Pales- 
tine. Assyria  occupied  a similar  position,  at  any  rate  from  the 
time  of  Ismi-dagon,  whose  son  built  a temple  at  Kileh-Sherghat 
or  Asshur.  There  is  reason  to  think  that  the  subjection  of 
Assyria  continued  to  the  very  end  of  the  dynasty,  and  that 
this  region,  whose  capital  was  at  Kileh-Sherghat,  was  adminis- 
tered by  viceroys  deriving  their  authority  from  the  Chaldsean 
monarchs.1  These  monarchs,  as  has  been  already  observed,2 
gradually  remove  their  capital  more  and  more  northwards ; by 
which  it  would  appear  as  if  their  empire  tended  to  progress  in 
that  direction. 

The  different  dynasties  which  ruled  in  Chaldsea  prior  to  the 
establishment  of  Assyrian  influence,  whether  Chaldaean,  Susia- 
nian,  or  Arabian,  seem  to  have  been  of  kindred  race ; and, 
whether  they  established  themselves  by  conquest,  or  in  a more 
peaceful  manner,  to  have  made  little,  if  any,  change  in  the  lan- 
guage, religion,  or  customs  of  the  Empire.  The  so-called  Arab 
kings,  if  they  are  really  (as  we  have  supposed),  Khammu-rabi 
and  his  successors,  show  themselves  by  their  names  and  their 
inscriptions  to  be  as  thoroughly  proto-Chaldsean  as  Urukh  or 
Ilgi.  But  with  the  commencement  of  the  Assyrian  period  the 
case  is  altered.  From  the  time  of  Tiglathi-Nin  (about  B.c.  1300), 
the  Assyrian  conqueror  who  effected  the  subjugation  of  Babylon, 
a strong  Semitising  influence  made  itself  felt  in  the  lower 
country — the  monarchs  cease  to  have  Turanian  or  Cushite  and 


0 Compare  ch.  i.  p.  4. 


Supra,  p.  164,  note  *. 


2 P.  166. 


Chap.  VIII. 


FALL  OF  THE  EMPIRE. 


79 


bear  instead  thoroughly  Assyrian  names ; inscriptions,  when 
they  occur,  are  in  the  Assyrian  language  and  character.  The 
entire  people  seems  by  degrees  to  have  been  Assyrianised,  or  at 
any  rate  Semitised — assimilated,  that  is,  to  the  stock  of  nations 
to  which  the  Jews,  the  northern  Arabs,  the  Aramaeans  or 
Syrians,  the  Phoenicians,  and  the  Assyrians  belong.  Their  lan- 
guage fell  into  disuse,  and  grew  to  be  a learned  tongue,  studied 
by  the  priests  and  the  literati ; their  Cushite  character  was  lost, 
and  they  became,  as  a people,  scarcely  distinguishable  from  the 
Assyrians.3  After  six  centuries  and  a half  of  submission  and 
insignificance,  the  Cbaldseans,  however,  began  to  revive  and  re- 
cover themselves — they  renewed  the  struggle  for  national  inde- 
pendence, and  in  the  year  b.c.  625  succeeded  in  establishing  a 
second  kingdom,  which  will  be  treated  of  in  a later  volume,  as 
the  fourth  or  Babylonian  Monarchy.  Even  when  this  monarchy 
met  its  death  at  the  hands  of  Cyrus  the  Great,  the  nationality 
of  the  Chald  seans  was  not  swept  away.  We  find  them  recognised 
under  the  Persians,4  and  even  under  the  Parthians,5  as  a distinct 
people.  When  at  last  they  cease  to  have  a separate  national 
existence,  their  name  remains ; and  it  is  in  memory  of  the  suc- 
cessful cultivation  of  their  favourite  science  by  the  people  of 
Nimrod  from  his  time  to  that  of  Alexander,  that  the  professors 
of  astronomical  and  astrological  learning  under  the  Eoman 
Emperors  receive,  from  the  poets  and  historians  of  the  time,  the 
appellation  of  “ Chaldseans.” 6 


3 Hence  Herodotus  always  regards 

the  Babylonians  as  Assyrians,  and  Baby- 
lonia as  a district  of  Assyria.  (See  i. 

106,  178,  188,  192,  &c. ; iii.  92  and 

155.)  4 Herod,  vii.  63. 


5 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 6 ; Plin.  H.  N.  vi. 
28. 

G Juv.  Sat.  vi.  552 ; x.  94  ; Tacit. 
Ann.  ii.  27  ; iii.  22  ; vi.  20,  &c. ; Sueton. 
Vit.  Vitett.  14;  Vit.  Domit.  14. 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY 


ASSYRIA. 


CHAPTER  I. 


DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 


“ TpLTrjiiiopLr]  f)  'A(T(Tvp'a)  TV  ^vvapiei  rrjs  &AArjs  ’Acrt^s.” — Herod,  i.  192. 


The  site  of  the  second — or  great  Assyrian — monarchy  was  the 
upper  portion  of  the  Mesopotamian  valley.  The  cities  which 
successively  formed  its  capitals  lay,  all  of  them,  upon  the  middle 
Tigris;  and  the  heart  of  the  country  was  a district  on  either 
side  that  river,  enclosed  within  the  thirty-fifth  and  thirty-seventh 
parallels.  By  degrees  these  limits  were  enlarged ; and  the 
term,  Assyria,  came  to  be  used,  in  a loose  and  vague  way,  of 
a vast  and  ill-defined  tract  extending  on  all  sides  from  this 
central  region.  Herodotus 1 considered  the  whole  of  Babylonia 
to  be  a mere  district  of  Assyria.  Pliny2  reckoned  to  it  ail 
Mesopotamia.  Strabo3  gave  it,  besides  these  regions,  a great 
portion  of  Mount  Zagros  (the  modern  Kurdistan)  and  all  Syria 
as  far  as  Cilicia,  Judaea,  and  Phoenicia. 

If,  leaving  the  conventional,  which  is  thus  vague  and  un- 


1 Herod,  i.  106,  192;  iii.  92.  ’Avb 
BafivAcovos  8e  real  rrjs  Aoiirris  ’Arnrvplrjs. 

2 Piin.  Hist.  Nat.  vi.  26.  “Mesopo- 
tamia tota  Assy  riorum  fuit.” 

3 Strabo  says : “ The  Assyrians  ad- 
join on  Persia  and  Susiana  ; for  by  this 
name  they  call  Babylonia,  and  a vast 
tract  of  the  surrounding  country,  in- 
cluding Aturia  (which  contains  Nineveh) 
and  Apollonias,  and  the  Elymaeans,  and 
the  Paraetacae,  and  the  district  about 
Mount  Zagros  called  Chalonitis,  and  the 
plain  tracts  near  Nineveh — Dolomene, 


and  Calachene,  and  Chazene,  and  Adia- 
bene— and  the  Mesopotamian  nations 
about  the  Gordi seans,  and  the  Mygdo- 
nians  about  Nisibis,  as  far  as  the  passage 
of  the  Euphrates,  and  a great  part  of  the 
country  beyond  the  Euphrates  (which  is 
in  possession  of  the  Arabs),  and  the 
people  now  called  by  way  of  distinction 
Syrians,  reaching  to  Cilicia,  and  Phoe- 
nicia, and  Judaea,  and  to  the  sea  over 
against  the  sea  of  Egypt  and  the  gulf  of 
Issus.”  ( Geograph . xvi.  1,  § 1.) 


Chap.  I. 


GENERAL  DESCRIPTION  OF  ASSYRIA. 


181 


satisfactory,  we  seek  to  find  certain  natural  limits  which  we  may- 
regard  as  the  proper  boundaries  of  the  country,  in  two  directions 
we  seem  to  perceive  an  almost  unmistakable  line  of  demarca- 
tion. On  the  east  the  high  mountain-chain  of  Zagros,  pene- 
trable only  in  one  or  two  places,  forms  a barrier  of  the  most 
marked  character,  and  is  beyond  a doubt  the  natural  limit  for 
which  we  are  looking.  On  the  south  a less  striking,  but  not 
less  clearly  defined,  line — formed  by  the  abutment  of  the  upper 
and  slightly  elevated  plain  on  the  alluvium  of  the  lower  valley 4 
— separates  Assyria  from  Babylonia,  which  is  best  regarded  as 
a distinct  country.  In  the  two  remaining  directions,  there  is 
more  doubt  as  to  the  most  proper  limit.  Northwards,  we  may 
either  view  Mount  Masius  as  the  natural  boundary,  or  the  course 
of  the  Tigris  from  Diarbekr  to  Til,  or  even  perhaps  the  Armenian 
mountain-chain  north  of  this  portion  of  the  Tigris,  from  whence 
that  river  receives  its  early  tributaries.5  Westward,  we  might 
confine  Assyria  to  the  country  watered  by  the  affluents  of  the 
Tigris,6  or  extend  it  so  as  to  include  the  Khabour  and  its 
tributaries,  or  finally  venture  to  carry  it  across  the  whole  of 
Mesopotamia,  and  make  it  be  bounded  by  the  Euphrates.  On 
the  whole  it  is  thought  that  in  both  the  doubtful  cases  the 
wider  limits  are  historically  the  truer  ones.  Assyrian  remains 
cover  the  entire  country  between  the  Tigris  and  the  Khabour, 
and  are  frequent  on  both  banks  of  the  latter  stream,  giving  un- 
mistakable indications  of  a long  occupation  of  that  region 
by  the  great  Mesopotamian  people.  The  inscriptions  show  that 
even  a wider  tract  was  in  process  of  time  absorbed  by  the  con- 
querors; and  if  we  are  to  draw  a line  between  the  country 
actually  taken  into  Assyria,  and  that  which  was  merely  con- 
quered and  held  in  subjection,  we  can  select  no  better  boundary 
than  the  Euphrates  westward,  and  northward  the  snowy  moun- 
tain-chain known  to  the  ancients  as  Mons  Niphates. 

If  Assyria  be  allowed  the  extent  which  is  here  assigned  to 


4 Supra,  p.  3.  3 Supra,  p.  9. 

6 This  is  the  division  adopted  in  the 

geographical  essay,  contained  in  vol.  i. 
of  the  author’s  Herodotus  (p.  569).  It 


was  thought  most  suitable  to  a general 
review  of  the  geography  of  Western 
Asia ; but  is  less  adapted  to  a special 
account  of  the  empire  of  the  Assyrians. 


1 82 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


her,  she  will  be  a country,  not  only  very  much  larger  than 
Chaldsea  or  Babylonia,  but,  positively,  of  considerable  dimensions. 
Beaching  on  the  north  to  the  thirty-eighth  and  on  the  south  to 
the  thirty-fourth  parallel,  she  had  a length  diagonally  from 
Diarbekr  to  the  alluvium  of  850  miles,  and  a breadth  between 
the  Euphrates  and  Mount  Zagros  varying  from  about  300  to 
170  miles.  Her  area  was  probably  not  less  than  75,000  square 
miles,  which  is  more  than  double  that  of  Portugal,  and  not 
much  below  that  of  Great  Britain.  She  would  thus  from  her 
mere  size  be  calculated  to  play  an  important  part  in  history ; 
and  the  more  so,  as  during  the  period  of  her  greatness  scarcely 
any  nation,  with  which  she  came  in  contact,  possessed  nearly 
so  extensive  a territory. 

Within  the  limits  here  assigned  to  Assyria,  the  face  of  the 
country  is  tolerably  varied.  Possessing,  on  the  whole,  perhaps, 
a predominant  character  of  flatness,  the  territory  still  includes 
some  important  ranges  of  hills,  while  on  two  sides  it  abuts  upon 
lofty  mountain-chains.  Towards  the  north  and  east  it  is  pro- 
vided by  nature  with  an  ample  supply  of  water ; rills  everywhere 
flowing  from  the  Armenian  and  Kurdish  ranges,  which  soon 
collect  into  rapid  and  abundant  rivers.  The  central,  southern, 
and  western  regions  are,  however,  less  bountifully  supplied  ; for 
though  the  Euphrates  washes  the  whole  western  and  south- 
western frontier,  it  spreads  fertility  only  along  its  banks;  and 
though  Mount  Masius  sends  down  upon  the  Mesopotamian  plain 
a considerable  number  of  streams,  they  form  in  the  space  of  200 
miles  between  Balis  and  Mosul  but  two  rivers,  leaving  thus 
large  tracts  to  languish  for  want  of  the  precious  fluid.  The 
vicinity  of  the  Arabian  and  Syrian  deserts  is  likewise  felt  in 
these  regions,  which,  left  to  themselves,  tend  to  acquire  the 
desert  character,  and  have  occasionally  been  regarded  as  actual 
parts  of  Arabia.7 

The  chief  natural  division  of  the  country  is  that  made  by  the 
Tigris,  which,  having  a course  nearly  from  north  to  south, 
between  Til  and  Samarah,  separates  Assyria  into  a western  and 


7 Xenophon,  Anab.  i.  5,  § 1 ; Plin.  H.  N.  v.  24 ; Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 26. 


Chap.  I.  CHIEF  DIVISIONS  — EASTERN  AND  WESTERN. 


183 


an  eastern  district.  Of  these  two,  the  eastern  or  that  upon  the 
left  bank  of  the  Tigris,  although  considerably  the  smaller,  has 
always  been  the  more  important  region.  Comparatively  narrow 
at  first,  it  broadens  as  the  course  of  the  river  is  descended,  till  it 
attains  about  the  thirty-fifth  parallel  a width  of  130  or  140 
miles.  It  consists  chiefly  of  a series  of  rich  and  productive 
plains,  lying  along  the  courses  of  the  various  tributaries  which 
flow  from  Mount  Zagros  into  the  Tigris,  and  often  of  a semi- 
alluvial  character.  These  plains  are  not,  however,  continuous. 
Detached  ranges  of  hills,  with  a general  direction  parallel  to  the 
Zagros  chain,  intersect  the  flat  rich  country,  separating  the 
plains  from  one  another,  and  supplying  small  streams8  and 
brooks  in  addition  to  the  various  rivers,  which,  rising  within  or 
beyond  the  great  mountain  barrier,  traverse  the  plains  on  their 
way  to  the  Tigris.  The  hills  themselves — known  now  as  the 
Jebel  Maklub,  the  Ain-es-sufra,  the  Karachok,  &c. — are  for  the 
most  part  bare  and  sterile.  In  form  they  are  hogbacked,  and 
viewed  from  a distance  have  a smooth  and  even  outline  ; but  on 
a nearer  approach  they  are  found  to  be  rocky  and  rugged. 
Their  limestone  sides  are  furrowed  by  innumerable  ravines,  and 
have  a dry  and  parched  appearance,  being  even  in  spring 
generally  naked  and  without  vegetation.  The  sterility  is  most 
marked  on  the  western  flank,  which  faces  the  hot  rays  of  the 
afternoon  sun;  the  eastern  slope  is  occasionally  robed  with  a 
scanty  covering  of  dwarf  oak  or  stunted  brushwood.9  In  the 
fat  soil  of  the  plains  the  rivers  commonly  run  deep  and  concealed 
from  view,1  unless  in  the  spring  and  the  early  summer,  when 
through  the  rains  and  the  melting  of  the  snows  in  the  mountains 
they  are  greatly  swollen,  and  run  bank  full,  or  even  overflow 
the  level  country. 

The  most  important  of  these  rivers  are  the  following: — the 


8 The  most  important  of  these  is  the 
Khosr,  or  river  of  Koyunjik,  which, 
rising  from  the  Ain  Sifni  hills  beyond 
the  Jebel  Maklub,  forces  its  way  through 
that  range,  and  after  washing  Khor- 
sabad,  and  crossing  the  great  plain, 

winds  round  the  eastern  base  of  the 
mound  at  Koyunjik,  and  then  runs  on 


to  the  Tigris.  It  is  a narrow  and  sluggish 
stream,  but  deep,  and  only  fordable  about 
Koyunjik  in  a few  places.  (See  Layard’s 
Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  77  ; and  com- 
pare the  view  of  the  ruins  of  Nineveh, 
infra,  p.  255.) 

u Layard,  p.  222.  1 Ibid.  p.  223. 


184 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


Kurnib  or  Eastern  Khabour,  which  joins  the  Tigris  in  lat.  37°  12'; 
the  Greater  Zab  (Zab  Ala),  which  washes  the  ruins  of  Nimrud, 
and  enters  the  main  stream  almost  exactly  in  lat.  36°;  the 
Lesser  Zab  (Zab  Asfal),  Avhich  effects  its  junction  about  lat. 
35°  15';  the  Adhem,  which  is  received  a little  below  Samarah, 
about  lat.  34° ; and  the  Diyaleh,  which  now  joins  below 
Baghdad,  but  from  which  branches  have  sometimes  entered  the 
Tigris  a very  little  below  the  mouth  of  the  Adhem.  Of  these 
streams  the  most  northern,  the  Khabour,  runs  chiefly  in  an  un- 
traversed country — the  district  between  Julamerik  and  the 
Tigris.  It  rises  a little  west  of  Julamerik  in  one  of  the  highest 
mountain  districts  of  Kurdistan,  and  runs  with  a general  south- 
westerly course  to  its  junction  with  another  large  branch,  which 
reaches  it  from  the  district  immediately  west  of  Amadiyeh ; it 
then  flows  due  west,  or  a little  north  of  west,  to  Zakko,  and, 
bending  to  the  north  after  passing  that  place,  flows  once  more 
in  a south-westerly  direction  until  it  reaches  the  Tigris.  The 
direct  distance  from  its  source  to  its  embouchure  is  about 
80  miles ; but  that  distance  is  more  than  doubled  by  its  windings. 
It  is  a stream  of  considerable  size,  broad  and  rapid,  at  many 
seasons  not  fordable  at  all  and  always  forded  with  difficulty.2 

The  Greater  Zab  is  the  most  important  of  all  the  tributaries 
of  the  Tigris.  It  rises  near  Konia,  in  the  district  of  Karasu, 
about  lat.  38°  20,'  long.  44°  30',  a little  west  of  the  watershed 
which  divides  the  basins  of  Lakes  Van  and  Urumiyeh.  Its 
general  course  for  the  first  150  miles  is  S.S.W.,  after  which  for 
25  or  30  miles  it  runs  almost  due  south  through  the  country  of 
the  Tiyari.  Near  Amadiyeh  it  makes  a sudden  turn,  and  flows 
S.E.  or  S.S.E.  to  its  junction  with  the  Rowandiz  branch  ; 3 
whence,  finally,  it  resumes  its  old  direction,  and  runs  south-west 
past  the  Kimrud  ruins  into  the  Tigris.  Its  entire  course, 
exclusive  of  small  windings,  is  above  350  miles,' and  of  these 
nearly  100  are  across  the  plain  country,  which  it  enters  soon 


2 Mr.  Layard  forded  the  Khabour  on 
his  way  to  Mosul  in  1849.  The  water 

was  above  the  horses’  bellies.  ( Nineveh 
and  Babylon , p.  5G.) 


3 Ainsworth,  in  the  Journal  of  the 
Geographical  Society,  vol.  xi.  p.  70.  Com- 
pare Mr.  Layard’s  large  map  at  the  end 
of  his  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 


Chap.  I. 


RIVERS  OF  EASTERN  ASSYRIA. 


185 


after  receiving  the  Rowandiz  stream.  Like  the  Khabour,  it  is 
fordable  at  certain  places  and  during  the  summer  season ; but 
even  then  the  water  reaches  above  the  bellies  of  horses.4  It  is 
20  yards  wide  a little  above  its  junction  with  the  main  stream.5 
On  account  of  its  strength  and  rapidity  the  Arabs  sometimes  call 
it  the  “ Mad  River.” 6 

The  Lesser  Zab  has  its  principal  source  near  Leg  win, 7 about 
twenty  miles  south  of  Lake  Urumiyeh,  in  lat.  36°  40',  long. 
46°  25'.  This  source  is  to  the  east  of  the  great  Zagros  chain ; 
and  it  might  have  been  supposed  that  the  waters  would  neces- 
sarily flow  northward  or  eastward,  towards  Lake  Urumiyeh,  or 
towards  the  Caspian.  But  the  Legwin  river,  called  even  at  its 
source  the  Zei  or  Zab,  flows  from  the  first  westward,  as  if  deter- 
mined to  pierce  the  mountain  barrier.  Failing,  however,  to  find 
an  opening  where  it  meets  the  range,  the  Little  Zab  turns  south 
and  even  south-east  along,  its  base,  till  about  25  or  30  miles 
from  its  source  it  suddenly  resumes  its  original  direction,  enters 
the  mountains  in  lat.  36°  20',  and  forces  its  way  through  the 
numerous  parallel  ranges,  flowing  generally  to  the  S.S.W.,  till  it 
debouches  upon  the  plain  near  Arbela,  after  which  it  runs  S.W. 
and  S.W.  by  S.  to  the  Tigris.  Its  course  among  the  mountains 
is  from  80  to  90  miles,  exclusive  of  small  windings ; and  it  runs 
more  than  100  miles  through  the  plain.  Its  ordinary  width,  just 
above  its  confluence  with  the  Tigris,  is  25  feet.8 

The  Diyaleh,  which  lies  mostly  within  the  limits  that  have 
been  here  assigned  to  Assyria,  is  formed  by  the  confluence  of 
two  principal  streams,  known  respectively  as  the  Holwan,  and 
the  Shirwan,  river.  Of  these,  the  Shirwan  seems  to  be  the  main 
branch.  This  stream  rises  from  the  most  eastern  and  highest  of 
the  Zagros  ranges,  in  lat.  34°  45',  long.  47°  40'  nearly.  It  flows 
at  first  west,  and  then  north-west,  parallel  to  the  chain,  but  on 
entering  the  plain  of  Shahrizur,  where  tributaries  join  it  from 
the  north-east  and  the  north-west,  the  Shirwan  changes  its 


4 Layard,  p.  169. 

5 Chesney,  Euphra tes+Expedition , yol. 

y.  p.  24.  « Ibid.  p.  22,  note  3. 

7 See  the  account  of  its  source  given 


by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  who  was  the  first 
European  to  explore  this  region,  in  the 
Journal  of  the  Geographical  Society , vol. 
x.  p.  31.  8 Chesney,  vol.  i.  p.  25. 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


1 86 


course  and  begins  to  run  south  of  west,  a direction  which  it 
pursues  till  it  enters  the  low  country,  about  lat.  35°  5',  near 
Semirain.  Thence  to  the  Tigris  it  has  a course  which  in  direct 
distance  is  150  miles,  and  200  if  we  include  only  main  windings.9 
The  whole  course  cannot  be  less  than  380  miles,  which  is  about 
the  length  of  the  Great  Zab  river.  The  width  attained,  before 
the  confluence  with  the  Tigris,  is  60  yards,1  or  three  times  the 
width  of  the  Greater,  and  seven  times  that  of  the  Lesser  Zab. 

• On  the  opposite  side  of  the  Tigris,  the  traveller  comes  upon 
a region  far  less  favoured  by  nature  than  that  of  which  we  have 
been  lately  speaking.  Western  Assyria  has  but  a scanty  supply 
of  water ; and  unless  the  labour  of  man  is  skilfully  applied  to 
compensate  this  natural  deficiency,  the  greater  part  of  the 
region  tends  to  be,  for  ten  months  out  of  the  twelve,  a desert. 
The  general  character  of  the  country  is  level,  but  not  alluvial. 
A line  of  mountains,  rocky  and  precipitous,  but  of  no  great 
elevation,  stretches  across  the  northern  part  of  the  region, 
running  nearly  due  east  and  west,  and  extending  from  the 
Euphrates  at  Eum-kaleh  to  Til  and  Chelek  upon  the  Tigris. 
Below  this,  a vast  slightly  undulating  plain  extends  from  the 
northern  mountains  to  the  Babylonian  alluvium,  only  inter- 
rupted about  midway  by  a range  of  low  limestone  hills  called 
the  Sinjar,  which  leaving  the  Tigris  near  Mosul  runs  nearly 
from  east  to  west  across  central  Mesopotamia,  and  strikes  the 
Euphrates  half-way  between  Rakkeh  and  Kerkesiyeh,  nearly  in 
long.  40°. 

The  northern  mountain  region,  called  by  Strabo  “ Mons 
Masius,”  and  by  the  Arabs  the  Karajah  Dagh  towards  the  west, 
and  towards  the  east  the  Jebel  Tur,  is  on  the  whole  a tolerably 
fertile  co'untry.2  It  contains  a good  deal  of  rocky  land ; but 


9 See  the  map  attached  to  Sir  H. 
Rawlinson’s  Memoir  on  the  Atropatenian 
Ecbatana,  in  the  Journal  of  the  Geo- 
graphical Society , vol.  x. 

1 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol. 
i.  p.  35. 

2 This  region  has  been  traversed  by 
few,  and  described  by  fewer,  Europeans. 
The  best  published  account  which  I have 
been  able  to  find  is  that  of  the  elder 


Niebuhr.  (See  his  Voyage  en  Arable , 
pp.  300-334.)  Some  careful  MS.  notes 
have  been  kindly  placed  at  my  disposal 
by  Mr.  A.  D.  Berrington,  who  has  tra- 
versed it.  On  the  general  fertility  of 
the  region,  compare  Niebuhr’s  Description 
de  V Arahie , pp.  134,  135.  Strabo’s  words 
are  well  weighed  and  just  meet  the  case — 
5E(TTt  S’rj  g'iv  n apopeios  zv§g.I[jlwv  hcavxs, 
xvi.  i.  § 23. 


Chap.  I. 


EIVEES  OF  WESTEEN  ASSYEIA. 


187 


has  abundant  springs,  and  in  many  parts  is  well  wooded.  To- 
wards the  west  it  is  rather  hilly  than  mountainous  ;3  but  towards 
the  east  it  rises  considerably,  and  the  cone  above  Mardin  is 
both  lofty  and  striking.4  The  waters  flowing  from  the  range 
consist,  on  the  north,  of  a small  number  of  brooks,  which  after 
a short  course  fall  into  the  Tigris;  on  the  south,  of  more 
numerous  and  more  copious  streams,  which  gradually  unite,  and 
eventually  form  two  rather  important  rivers.  These  rivers  are 


The  Khabour,  from  near  Arban,  looking  north  (after  Layard). 


the  Belik,  known  anciently  as  the  Bilecha,5  and  the  Western 
Khabour,  called  Habor  in  Scripture,  and  by  the  classical  writers 
Aborrhas  or  Chaboras.6 

The  Belik  rises  among  the  hills  east  of  Orfa,  about  long.  39°, 
lat.  37°  10'.  Its  course  is  at  first  somewhat  east  of  south ; but 


3 Niebuhr,  Voyage  en  Arabie,  pp.  i 6 Aborrhas  by  Strabo  (xvi.  i.  § 27) 

328-334  ; Pocock,  Description  of  the  and  Procopius  {Bell.  Pers.  ii.  5)  ; Cha- 
East,  vol.  ii.  pp.  158-163  ; Chesney,  j boras  (Xafidpas)  by  Pliny  (xxx.  3),  and 
Euphrates  Expedition , yol.  i.  p.  107.  | Ptolemy  (v.  18).  Other  forms  of  the 

4 Niebuhr,  p.  317  ; Layard,  Nineveh  \ word  are  Aburas  (’A/3 ovpas,  Isid.  Char. 

and  Babylon , p.  51.  5 Isid.  Char.  p.  3.  p.  5),  and  Abora  (’A/3c6pa,  Zosim.  iii.  12). 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


1 88 


it  soon  sweeps  round,  and,  passing  by  the  city  of  Harran — the 
Haran  of  Scripture  and  the  classical  Carrhse7 — proceeds  nearly 
due  south  to  its  junction,  a few  miles  below  Kakkah,  with  the 
Euphrates.  It  is  a small  stream  throughout  its  whole  course,8 
which  may  be  reckoned  at  100  or  120  miles. 

The  Khabour  is  a much  more  considerable  river.  It  collects 
the  waters  which  flow  southward  from  at  least  two-thirds  of  the 
Mons  Masius,9  and  has,  besides,  an  important  source,  which  the 
Arabs  regard  as  the  true  “head  of  the  spring,”1  derived  appa- 
rently from  a spur  of  the  Sinjar  range.  This  stream,  which  rises 
about  lat.  36°  40',  long.  40°,  flows  a little  south  of  east  to  its 
junction  near  Koukab  with  the  Jerujer  or  river  of  Nisibis,  which 
comes  down  from  Mons  Masius  with  a course  not  much  west 
of  south.  Both  of  these  branches  are  formed  by  the  union  of  a 
number  of  streams.  Neither  of  them  is  fordable  for  some  dis- 
tance above  their  junction  ; and  below  it,  they  constitute  a river 
of  such  magnitude  as  to  be  navigable  for  a considerable  distance 
by  steamers.2  The  course  of  the  Khabour  below  Koukab  is 
tortuous;3  but  its  general  direction  is  S.  S.W.  The  entire 
length  of  the  stream  is  certainly  not  less  than  200  miles. 

The  country  between  the  “ Mons  Masius  ” and  the  Sinjar  • 
range  is  an  undulating  plain,  from  60  to  70  miles  in  width, 
almost  as  devoid  of  geographical  features  as  the  alluvium  of 
Babylonia.  From  a height  the  whole  appears  to  be  a dead 
level:4  but  the  traveller  finds,  on  descending,  that  the  surface, 
like  that  of  the  American  prairies  and  the  Homan  Campagna, 
really  rises  and  falls  in  a manner  which  offers  a decided  con- 
trast to  the  alluvial  flats  nearer  the  sea.  Great  portions  of  the 
tract  are  very  deficient  in  water.  Only  small  streams  descend 
from  the  Sinjar  range,  and  these  are  soon  absorbed  by  the 
thirsty  soil ; so  that  except  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the 
hills  north  and  south,  and  along  the  courses  of  the  Khabour, 
the  Belik,  and  their  affluents,  there  is  little  natural  fertility. 


7 Plin,  H.  N.  v.  24 ; Dio  Cass,  xxxvii. 
5 ; Strab,  xvi.  1,  § 23,  &c. 

8 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol. 
i.  p.  48. 

v Ainsworth,  Travels  in  the  Track  of 


the  'Ten  Thousand , p.  79,  note  l. 

1 Has  el  Ain.  (Niebuhr,  p.  316  ; 
Layard,  p.  308;  Ainsworth,  p.  75.) 

2 Ainsworth,  1.  s.  c. 

3 Layard,  p.  304. 


4 Ibid.  p.  51. 


Chap.  I. 


VOLCANIC  HILL  OF  KOUKAB. 


89 


and  cultivation  is  difficult.  The  soil  too  is  often  gypsiferous ; 
and  its  salt  and  nitrous  exudations  destroy  vegetation;5  while 
at  the  same  time  the  streams  and  springs  are  from  the  same 
cause  for  the  most  part  brackish  and  unpalatable.6  Volcanic 
action  probably  did  not  cease  in  the  region  very  much,  if  at  all, 
before  the  historical  period.  Fragments  of  basalt  in  many 
places  strew  the  plain ; and  near  the  confluence  of  the  two 
chief  branches  of  the  Khabour,  not  only  are  old  craters  of 
volcanoes  distinctly  visible,  but  a cone  still  rises  from  the  centre 


Koukab  (after  Layard). 


of  one,  precisely  like  the  cones  in  the  craters  of  Etna  and 
Vesuvius,  composed  entirely  of  loose  lava,  scope,  and  ashes, 
and  rising  to  the  height  of  300  feet.  The  name  of  this  re- 
markable hill,  which  is  Koukab,  is  even  thought  to  imply,  that 
the  volcano  may  have  been  active  within  the  time  to  which  the 
traditions  of  the  country  extend.7 

Sheets  of  water  are  so  rare  in  this  region  that  the  small  lake 
of  Khatouniyeh  seems  to  deserve  especial  description.  This 


5 Layard,  p.  324.  6 Ibid.  pp.  242,  325. 

7 Ibid.  p.  308.  Koukab  is  said  to  signify  “ a jet  of  fire  or  flame.” 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  I. 


190 

Like  is  situated  near  the  point  where  the  Sinjar  changes  its 
character,  and  from  a high  rocky  range  subsides  into  low 
broken  hills.  It  is  of  oblong  shape,  with  its  greater  axis  point- 


ing nearly  due  east  and  west,  in  length  about  four  miles,  and 
in  its  greatest  breadth  somewhat  less  than  three.8  The  banks 


8 See  Mr.  Layard’s  maps  at  the  end 
of  his  JSineveh  and  Babylon.  For  a ge- 
neral description  of  the  lake,  compare 


the  same  work,  p.  324,  with  C.  Niebuhr’s 
Voyage  en  Arable , p.  316. 


Chap.  I. 


SINJAR  RANGE. 


191 


are  low  and  in  part  marshy,  more  especially  on  the  side  towards 
the  Khabour,  which  is  not  more  than  ten  miles  distant.9  In 
the  middle  of  the  lake  is  a hilly  peninsula,  joined  to  the  main- 
land by  a narrow  causeway,  and  beyond  it  a small  island 
covered  with  trees.  The  lake  abounds  with  fish  and  waterfowl ; 
and  its  water,  though  brackish,  is  regarded  as  remarkably  whole- 
some both  for  man  and  beast. 

The  Sinjar  range,  which  divides  Western  Assyria  into  two 
plains,  a northern  and  a southern,  is  a solitary  limestone  ridge, 
rising  up  abruptly  from  the  flat  country,  which  it  commands 
to  a vast  distance  on  both  sides.  The  limestone,  of  which  it  is 
composed,  is  white,  soft,  and  fossiliferous ; it  detaches  itself  in 
enormous  flakes  from  the  mountain-sides,  which  are  sometimes 
broken  into  a succession  of  gigantic  steps,  while  occasionally 
they  present  the  columnar  appearance  of  basalt.1  The  flanks 
of  the  Sinjar  are  seamed  with  innumerable  ravines,  and  from 
these  small  brooks  issue,  which  are  soon  dispersed  by  irrigation, 
or  absorbed  in  the  thirsty  plains.2  The  sides  of  the  mountain 
are  capable  of  being  cultivated  by  means  of  terraces,  and  pro- 
duce fair  crops  of  corn  and  excellent  fruit ; the  top  is  often 
wooded  with  fruit-trees  or  forest-trees.3  Geographically,  the 
Sinjar  may  be  regarded  as  the  continuation  of  that  range  of 
hills  which  shuts  in  the  Tigris  on  the  west,  from  Tekrit  nearly 
to  Mosul,  and  then  leaving  the  river  strikes  across  the  plain  in 
a direction  almost  from  east  to  west  as  far  as  the  town  of  Sinjar. 
Here  the  mountains  change  their  course  and  bend  to  the  south- 
west, till  having  passed  the  little  lake  described  above,  they 
somewhat  suddenly  subside,4  sinking  from  a high  ridge  into  low 
undulating  hills,  which  pass  to  the  south  of  the  lake,  and  then 
disappear  in  the  plain  altogether.  According  to  some,  the  Sinjar 
here  terminates ; but  perhaps  it  is  best  to  regard  it  as  rising 


9 A long  swamp,  called  the  Hoi,  ex- 
tends from  the  lake  to  within  a short 
distance  of  the  Khabour  (Layard,  1.  s.  c.). 
This  is  probably  the  Holi,  or  Hauli  of 
some  writers,  which  is  represented  as  a 
tributary  of  the  Khabour.  (See  Chesney, 
Euphrates  Expedition , vol.  i.  p.  51  ; 
Journal  of  Geographical  Society,  vol.  ix. 


p.  423,  &c.) 

1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  250. 

2 Ibid.  p.  256.  Compare  Nineveh  and 
its  Remains , vol.  i.  p.  315,  note. 

3 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp. 
253-256.  * 

4 Ibid.  p.  265. 


192 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


again  in  the  Abcl-el-aziz  hills,5  which,  intervening  between  the 
Khabour  and  the  Euphrates,  run  on  in  the  same  south-west 
direction  from  Arban  to  Zelabi.  If  this  be  accepted  as  the 
true  course  of  the  Sinjar,  we  must  view  it  as  throwing  out  two 
important  spurs.  One  of  these  is  near  its  eastern  extremity, 
and  runs  to  the  south-east,  dividing  the  plain  of  Zerga  from  the 
great  central  level.  Like  the  main  chain,  it  is  of  limestone ; 
and,  though  low,  has  several  remarkable  peaks  which  serve  as 
landmarks  from  a vast  distance.  The  Arabs  call  it  Kebritiyeh, 
or  “ the  Sulphur  range,”  from  a sulphurous  spring  which  rises 
at  its  foot.6  The  other  spur  is  thrown  out  near  the  western 
extremity,  and  runs  towards  the  north-west,  parallel  to  the 
course  of  the  upper  Khabour,  which  rises  from  its  flank  at 
Kas-el-Ain.7  The  name  of  Abd-el-aziz  is  applied  to  this  spur, 
as  well  as  to  the  continuation  of  the  Sinjar  between  Arban  and 
Halebi.  It  is  broken  into  innumerable  valleys  and  ravines,8 
abounding  with  wild  animals,  and  is  scantily  wooded  with  dwarf 
oak.  Streams  of  water  abound  in  it. 

South  of  the  Sinjar  range,  the  country  resumes  the  same  level 
appearance  which  characterises  it  between  the  Sinjar  and  the 
Mons  Masius.  A low  limestone  ridge  skirts  the  Tigris  valley 
from  Mosul  to  Tekrit,9  and  near  the  Euphrates  the  country  is 
sometimes  slightly  hilly ; 1 but  generally  the  eye  travels  over 
a vast  slightly  undulating  level,  unbroken  by  eminences,  and 
supporting  but  a scanty  vegetation.  The  description  of  Xeno- 
phon a little  exaggerates  the  flatness,  but  is  otherwise  faithful 
enough : — “ In  these  parts  the  country  was  a plain  throughout, 
as  smooth  as  the  sea,  and  full  of  wormwood ; if  any  other 
shrub  or  reed  grew  there,  it  had  a sweet  aromatic  smell ; but 
there  was  not  a tree  in  the  whole  region.” 2 Water  is  still  more 


5 This  is  the  view  of  Colonel  Chesney. 
(See  his  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  i. 
p.  105.) 

6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  242, 
note,  and  p.  249. 

7 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , p.  49. 

8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  312. 

9 Ibid.  pp.  240,  241. 

1 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  pp. 

52,  53.  The  hills  in  this  region  are  of 


chalk  formation,  as  is  the  Abd-el-aziz, 
according  to  the  same  author.  (Ibid, 
p.  105.) 

2 Xen.  Anab.  i.  5,  § 1 . ’Ey  rovrcp  5e 
rep  rdircp  -t) v pev  y yy  veSlov,  airav  SpaXbv 
fcenrep  OaXarra,  a \pivdiov  Se  wXypes'  el 
8e  rt  Ka\  &XX o evyv  iiXys  KaXapov, 
airavra  'fjaav  evcbSy,  tienrep  apcl>para‘ 
devSpo v S’  ovSev  evyv. 


Chap.  I. 


POLITICAL  GEOGRAPHY. 


, 193 


scarce  than  in  the  plains  north  of  the  Sinjar.  The  brooks 
descending  from  that  range  are  so  weak  that  they  generally 
lose  themselves  in  the  plain  before  they  have  run  many  miles. 
In  one  case  only  do  they  seem  sufficiently  strong  to  form  a 
river.  The  Tharthar,  which  flows  by  the  ruins  of  El  Hadhiy 
is  at  that  place  a considerable  stream,  not  indeed  very  wide, 
but  so  deep  that  horses  have  to  swim  across  it.3  Its  course 
above  El  Hadhr  has  not  been  traced ; but  the  most  probable 
conjecture  seems  to  be  that  it  is  a continuation  of  the  Sinjar 
river,  which  rises  about  the  middle  of  the  range,  in  long.  41°  50',. 
and  flows  south-east  through  the  desert.  The  Tharthar  ap- 
pears at  one  time  to  have  reached  the  Tigris  near  Tekrit,4  but 
it  now  ends  in  a marsh  or  lake  to  the  south-west  of  that  city.5 

The  political  geography  of  Assyria  need  not  occupy  much  of 
our  attention.  There  is  no  native  evidence  that  in  |he  time 
of  the  great  monarchy  the  country  was  formally  divided  into 
districts,  to  which  any  particular  names  were  attached,  or 
which  were  regarded  as  politically  separate  from  one  another ; 
nor  do  such  divisions  appear  in  the  classical  writers  until  the 
time  of  the  later  geographers,  Strabo,  Dionysius,  and  Ptolemy. 
If  it  were  not  that  mention  is  made  in  the  Old  Testament  of 
certain  districts  within  the  region  which  has  been  here  termed 
Assyria,  we  should  have  no  proof  that  in  the  early  times 
any  divisions  at  all  had  been  recognised.  The  names,  however, 
of  Padan-Aram,  Aram-N aharaim,  Gozan,  Halah,  and  (perhaps) 
Huzzab,  designate  in  Scripture  particular  portions  of  the 
Assyrian  territory;  and  as  these  portions  appear  to  correspond 
in  some  degree  with  the  divisions  of  the  classical  geographers, 
we  are  led  to  suspect  that  these  writers  may  in  many,  if  not 
in  most,  cases  have  followed  ancient  and  native  traditions  or 
authorities.  The  principal  divisions  of  the  classical  geographers 
will  therefore  be  noticed  briefly,  so  far  at  least  as  they  are 
intelligible. 

According  to  Strabo,6  the  district  within  which  Nineveh  stood 


3 Journal  of  Geographical  Society , vol. 
ix.  p.  455. 

4 Chesney,  p.  50. 

YOL.  I. 


5 Ibid.  p.  51 ; Layard,  Nineveh  and  its 
Remains,  vol.  i.  p.  315,  note. 

6 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 1. 


0 


194 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


was  called  Aturia,  whicli  seems  to  be  the  word  Assyria  slightly 
corrupted,  as  we  know  that  it  habitually  was  by  the  Persians.7 
The  neighbouring  plain  country  he  divides  into  four  regions — 
Dolomene,  Calachene,  Chazene,  and  Adiabene.  Of  Dolomene, 
which  Strabo  mentions  but  in  one  place,  and  which  is  wholly 
omitted  by  other  authors,  no  account  can  be  given.8  Cala- 
chene, which  is  perhaps  the  Calacine  of  Ptolemy,9  must  be  the 
tract  about  Calah  (Nimrud),  or  the  country  immediately  north 
of  the  Upper  Zab  river.  Chazene,  like  Dolomene,  is  a term 
which  cannot  be  explained.1  Adiabene,  on  the  contrary,  is  a 
well-known  geographical  expression.2  It  is  the  country  of  the 
Zab  or  Diab  rivers,3  and  either  includes  the  whole  of  Eastern 
Assyria  between  the  mountains  and  the  Tigris,4  or  mor^  strictly 
is  applied  to  the  region  between  the  Upper  and  Lower  Zab,5 
which  consists  of  two  large  plains  separated  from  each  other 
by  the  Karachok  hills.  In  this  way  Arbelitis,  the  plain  between 
the  Karachok  and  Zagros,  would  fall  within  Adiabene ; but  it 
is  sometimes  made  a distinct  region,6  in  which  case  Adiabene 
must  be  restricted  to  the  flat  between  the  two  Zabs,  the  Tigris, 


7 The  form  Aturia  (’A rovp'ia)  is  used 
likewise  by  Arrian  ( Exp . Al.  iii.  7),  and 
by  Stephen  (ad  voe.  NtVos)*  Dio  Cassius 
writes  Atyria  (’A rup'ia),  and  asserts  that 
the  r was  always  used  for  the  s “ by  the 
barbarians”  (lv.  28).  It  was  certainly 
so  used  by  the  Persians  (see  the  Behistun 
Inscription , passim) ; but  the  Assyrians 
themselves,  like  the  Jews  and,  the  Greeks, 
seem  to  have  employed  the  s. 

8 Dolomene  is  ingeniously  connected 
by  Mons.  C.  Muller  with  the  Dolba  of 
Arrian.  (Fr.  Id.  See  the  Fragment. 
Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iii.  p.  588.)  It  is  clear, 
that  the  ethnic  A0A/877V77  (Steph.  Byz. 
ad  voc.)  would  easily  pass  into  AoXo/xpurj. 
Dolba,  according  to  Arrian,  was  a city 
in  Adiaben^. 

9 Ptol.  vi.  1..  As  Ptolemy,  however, 
places  Calacine  above  Adiabene,  he  may 
possibly  intend  it  for  Chalonitis. 

1  Chazend  was  indeed  mentioned  by 
Arrian  in  his  Parthica  ; and  if  we  pos- 
sessed that  work,  we  should  probably  not 
find  much  difficulty  in  locating  it.  But 
the  fragment  in  Stephen  (ad  voc.  Xa£r)vtf) 
tells  us  nothing  of  its  exact  position. 
Stephen  himself  is  clearly  wrong  in 


placing  it  on  the  Euphrates.  Arrian 
probably  included  it  in  the  territory  of 
Dolba,  which  was  with  him  a part  of 
Adiaben^.  (See  above,  note  8,  and  com- 
pare the  fragment  of  Arrian  : ’Ei/  tout?? 
rrj  5OAj3 ia  (leg.  AoA/3ia  vel  AoAySaio) 
teal  ra  irebia  rps  Xa^pups  (rarpcnreias 
e7rt  ix^kuttou  airoTeTa/xeua.') 

2 See  Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 1 and  § 19; 
Plin.  H.  N.  v.  12,  vi.  13;  Ptol.  vi.  1 ; 
Arrian,  Fr.  11-13;  Pomp.  Mel.  i.  11; 
Solin.  48  ; Amm.  Marc,  xxiii.  20,  &c. 

3 So  Ammianus  explains  the  name — 
“ Nos  autem  id  dicimus,  quod  in  bis 
terris  amnes  sunt  duo  perpetui,  quos  et 
transivimus,  Diabas  et  Adiabas,  juncti 
navalibus  pontibus ; ideoque  intelligi 
Adiabenam  cognominatam,  ut  a flumi- 
nibus  maximis  iEgyptus,  et  India,  iti- 
demque  Hiberia  et  Bsetica.”  (xxiii.  6.) 

4 Pliny  seems  to  give  to  Adiabend 
this  extended  signification,  when  he 
says, — “ Adiabenen  Tigris  et  montium 
sinus  cingunt.  At  laeva  ejus  regio  Me- 
dorum  est.”  (#.  N.  vi.  9 ; compare  ch. 
vi.  26.) 

5 Amm.  Marc.  1.  s.  c. 

6 As  by  Ptolemy  ( Geograph . vi.  1). 


Chap.  I. 


DISTRICTS  OF  ASSYRIA. 


*95 


and  the  Karachok.  Chalonitis  and  Apolloniatis,  which  Strabo 
seems  to  place  between  these  northern  plains  and  Susiana,7  must 
be  regarded  as  dividing  between  them  the  country  south  of  the 
Lesser  Zab,  Apolloniatis  (so  called  from  its  Greek  capital, 
Apollonia)  lying  along  the  Tigris,  and  Chalonitis  along  the 
mountains  from  the  pass  of  Derbend  to  Gilan.8  Chalonitis 
seems  to  have  taken  its  name  from  a capital  city  called  Chala,9 
which  lay  on  the  great  route  connecting  Babylon  with  the 
southern  Ecbatana,  and  in  later  times  was  known  as  Hoi  wan.1 
Below  Apolloniatis,2  and  (like  that  district)  skirting  the  Tigris, 
was  Sittacene  (so  named  from  its  capital,  Sittace3),  which  is 
commonly  reckoned  to  Assyria,4  but  seems  more  properly  re- 
garded as  Susianian  territory.  Such  are  the  chief  divisions  of 
Assyria  east  of  the  Tigris. 

West  of  the  Tigris,  the  name  Mesopotamia  is  commonly 
used,  like  the  Aram-Naharaim  of  the  Hebrews,  for  the  whole 
country  between  the  two  great  rivers.  Here  are  again  several 
districts,  of  which  little  is  known,  as  Acabene,  Tingene,  and 
Ancobaritis.5  Towards  the  north,  along  the  flanks  of  Mons 
Masius  from  Nisibis  to  the  Euphrates,  Strabo  seems  to  place 
the  Mygdonians,  and  to  regard  the  country  as  Mygdonia.6 
Below  Mygdonia,  towards  the  west,  he  puts  Anthemusia,  which 
he  extends  as  far  as  the  Khabour  river.7  The  region  south  of 


7 Strab.  xv.  3,  § 12 ; xvi.  1,  § 1. 

8 The  position  of  Chalonitis  is  pretty 
exactly  indicated  by  Strabo,  Polybius, 
and  Isidore  of  Charax.  Strabo  calls  it 

irepl  r b Zaypov  opos  XaAcvririy  (xvi. 
1,  § 1).  Polybius  connects  it  with  the 
same  mountain  range  (v.  54,  § 7).  Isidore 
distinctly  places  it  between  Apolloniatis 
and  Media  {Mans.  Parth.  p.  5).  See  also 
Dionys.  Perieg.  i.  1015,  and  Plin.  H.  N . 
vi.  27. 

9 Isid.  Mans.  Parth.  1.  s.  c.  Tacitus 
probably  intends  the  same  city  by  his 
“ Halus”  {Ann.  vi.  41),  which  he  couples 
with  Artemita.  It  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  identical  either  with  the 
Halah  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  or  with 
the  Calah  of  Genesis. 

1  The  ruins  of  Holwan  were  visited 
by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  year  1836. 
Por  an  account  of  them,  and  for  a notice 
of  the  importance  of  Holwan  in  Maho- 


metan times,  see  the  Journal  of  the  Geo- 
graphical Soc.  vol.  ix.  pp.  35-40. 

2 Strabo  identifies  Sittacen6  with 
Apolloniatis  (xv.  3,  § 12) ; but  from 
Ptolemy  (vi.  1)  and  other  geographers 
we  gather  that  Sittacene  was  further 
down  the  river. 

3 Sittace  was  first  noticed  by  Heca- 
tseus  (Fr.  184).  It  was  visited  by  Xe- 
nophon {Anab.  ii.  4,  § 13).  Strabo  omits 
all  mention  of  it.  AVe  have  notices  of 
it  in  Pliny  {H.  N.  vi.  27),  and  Stephen 
(ad  voc.  'ViTTaKri ). 

4 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 1,  et  passim ; Ptol. 
vi.  1. 

5 Ptol.  v.  18. 

6 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 1,  and  § 23. 

7 Ibid.  § 27.  Anthemusia  derived  its 
name  from  a city  Anthemus  (Steph.  Byz.), 
or  Anthemusias  (Tacit.  Isid.),  built  by 
the  Macedonians  between  the  Euphrates 
and  the  Belik. 

o 2 


196 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


the  Kbabour  and  the  Sinjar  he  seems  to  regard  as  inhabited 
entirely  by  Arabs.8  Ptolemy  has,  in  lieu  of  the  Mygdonia  of 
Strabo,  a district  which  he  calls  Gauzanitis ; 9 and  this  name  is 
on  good  grounds  identified  with  the  Gozan  of  Scripture  1 — the 
true  original  probably  of  the  44  Mygdonia  ” of  the  Greeks.2 
Gozan  appears  to  represent  the  whole  of  the  upper  country 
from  which  the  longer  affluents  of  the  Khabour  spring ; while 
Halah,  which  is  coupled  with  it  in  Scripture,3  and  which  Ptolemy 
calls  Chalcitis,  and  makes  border  on  Gauzanitis,  may  designate 
the  tract  upon  the  main  stream,  as  it  comes  down  from  Ras-el- 
Ain.4  The  region  about  the  upper  sources  of  the  Belik  has  no 
special  designation  in  Strabo,  but  in  Scripture  it  seems  to  be 
called  Padan-Aram,5  a name  which  has  been  explained  as  44  the 
flat  Syria,”  or  44  the  country  stretching  out  from  the  foot  of  the 
hills.”6  In  the  later  Roman  times  it  was  known  as  Osrhoene;7 
but  this  name  was  scarcely  in  use  before  the  time  of  the  An- 
ton ines. 

The  true  heart  of  Assyria  was  the  country  close  along  the 
Tigris,  from  lat.  35°  to  36°  30'.  Within  these  limits  were  the 
four  great  cities,  marked  by  the  mounds  at  Khorsabad,  Mosul, 
Nimrud,  and  Kileh-Sherghat,  besides  a multitude  of  places  of 
inferior  consequence.  It  has  been  generally  supposed  that  the 
left  bank  of  the  river  was  more  properly  Assyria  than  the 
right ; 8 and  the  idea  is  so  far  correct,  as  that  the  left  bank  was 


8 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 26.  Compare  Plin. 
H.  N.  v.  24.  9 Ptol.  v.  18. 

1 2 Kings  xvii.  6 ; xviii.  11  ; xix.  12  ; 
1 Chron.  v.  26  ; Is.  xxxvii.  12.  The 
identification  does  not  depend  upon  the 
mere  resemblance  of  name ; but  upon 
that,  combined  with  the  mention  of  the 
Habor  (or  Khabour)  as  the  river  of 
Gozan,  and  the  implied  vicinity  of  Gozan 
to  Haran  (Harran)  and  Halah  (Chalcitis). 

2 See  the  article  on  “Gozan”  in 
Smith’s  Biblical  Dictionary , vol.  i.  p.  726. 
The  initial  m (D)  in  the  word  Mygdonia 
is  probably  a mere  adjectival  or  parti- 
cipial prefix  ; while  the  d represents  the 
Semitic  z (|),  according  to  an  ordinary 
phonetic  variation. 

3 2 Kings  xvii.  6 ; xviii.  11;  1 Chron. 
v.  26. 

4 One  of  the  mounds  on  this  stream 


is  still  called  Gla,  or  Kalah,  by  the 
Arabs.  (See  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Baby- 
lon, p.  312,  note.) 

5 Gen.  xxv.  20 ; xxviii.  2-7,  &c.  The 
name  is  only  used  in  Genesis. 

6 Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine , p.  128, 
note  l.  It  is  curious,  however,  that  both 
Padan-Arom  and  Aram -Naharaim  recall 
the  names  of  nations  inhabiting  these 
parts  in  the  Assyrian  times.  The  chief 
inhabitants  of  the  Mons  Masius  men- 
tioned by  the  early  Assyrian  kings  are 
the  Nairi ; and  across  the  Euphrates, 
towards  Aleppo,  there  is  a tribe  called 
the  Patena.  Probably,  however,  both 
coincidences  are  accidental. 

7 Dio  Cass.  xl.  19;  lxviii.  18,  &c. 
Arrian,  Fr.  2 ; Herodian,  iii.  9,  &c. 

8 Ptolemy  bounds  Assyria  by  the 
Tigris  ( Geograph . vi.  1).  Pliny  identi- 


Chap.  I. 


.EXTENT  OF  ASSYRIAN  RUINS. 


197 


in  truth  of  primary  value  and  importance,9  whence  it  naturally 
happened  that  three  out  of  the  four  capitals  were  built  on  that 
side  of  the  stream.  Still  the  very  fact  that  one  early  capital 
was  on  the  right  bank  is  enough  to  show  that  both  shores  of  the 
stream  were  alike  occupied  by  the  race  from  the  first ; and  this 
conclusion  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  other  indications  through- 
out the  region.  Assyrian  ruins,  the  remains  of  considerable 
towns,  strew  the  whole  country  between  the  Tigris  and  Kha- 
bour,  both  north  and  south  of  the  Sinjar  range.1  On  the 
banks  of  the  Lower  Khabour  are  the  remains  of  a royal 
palace,2  besides  many  other  traces  of  the  tract  through  which 
it  runs  having  been  permanently  occupied  by  the  Assyrian 
people.3  Mounds,  probably  Assyrian,  are  known  to  exist  along 
the  course  of  the  Khabour’s  great  western  affluent ; 4 and  even 
near  Seruj,  in  the  country  between  Harran  and  the  Euphrates 
some  evidence  has  been  found 
not  only  of  conquest  but  of  occu- 
pation.5 Remains  are  perhaps 
more  frequent  on  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  Tigris  ; at  any 
rate  they  are  more  striking 
and  more  important.  Bavian, 

Khorsabad,  Shereef  - Khan, 

Nebbi- Yunus,  Koyunjik,  and 
Nimrud,  which  have  furnished 
by  far  the  most  valuable  and  interesting  of  the  Assyrian  monu- 
ments, all  lie  east  of  the  Tigris ; while  on  the  west  two  places 


Colossal  lion,  near  Seruj. 


lies  Adiabene  with  Assyria  ( H '.  N.  v. 
12).  If  the  Huzzab  of  Nahum  is  really 
“ the  Zab  region  ” (Smith’s  Biblical  Dic- 
tionary, sub  voc.),  that  prophet  would 
make  the  same  identification.  When 
Strabo  (xvi.  1,  § 1)  and  Arrian  (Exp. 
Alex.  iii.  7)  place  Aturia  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Tigris  only,  they  indicate  a 
similar  feeling. 

9 See  above,  pp.  182,  183. 

1  They  are  less  numerous  north  of  the 
Sinjar.  (See  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Baby- 
lon, p.  252.)  Still  there  are  a certain 
number  of  ancient  mounds  in  the  more 


northern  plain.  (Ibid.  pp.  334,  335 ; 
and  compare  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  i.  p.  311.) 

2 At  Arban.  ( Nineveh  and  Babylon , 
pp.  275,  276.) 

3 Ibid.  pp.  297-300. 

4 Ibid.  p.  312,  and  note. 

5 The  colossal  lions  at  this  place,  12  feet 
long  and  7 feet  3 inches  high,  are  un- 
mistakably Assyrian,  and  must  have 
belonged  to  some  large  building.  (See 
Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol.  i. 
pp.  114,  115,  whence  the  above  repre- 
sentation is  taken.) 


198  THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  I. 

only  have  yielded  relics  worthy  to  be  compared  with  these, 
Arban  and  Kileh-Sherghat. 

It  is  curious  that  in  Assyria,  as  in  early  Chaldaea,  there  is  a 
special  pre-eminence  of  four  cities.  An  indication  of  this  might 
seem  to  be  contained  in  Genesis,  where  Asshur  is  said  to  have 
“builded  Nineveh,  and  the  city  Rehoboth,  and  Calah,  and 
Resen  ;”6  but  on  the  whole  it  is  more  probable  that  we  have 
here  a mistranslation  (which  is  corrected  for  us  in  the  margin  7), 
and  that  three  cities  only  are  ascribed  by  Moses  to  the  great 
patriarch.  In  the  flourishing  period  of  the  empire,  however, 
we  actually  find  four  capitals,  of  which  the  native  names  seem 
to  have  been  Ninua,  Calah,  Asshur,  and  Bit-Sargina,  or  Dur- 
Sargina  (the  city  of  Sargon) — all  places  of  first-rate  conse- 
quence. Besides  these  principal  cities,  which  were  the  sole  seats 
of  government,  Assyria  contained  a vast  number  of  large  towns, 
few  of  which  it  is  possible  to  name,  but  so  numerous  that 
they  cover  the  whole  face  of  the  country  with  their  ruins.8 
Among  them  were  Tarbisa,  Arbil,  Arapkha,  and  Khazeh,  in  the 
tract  between  the  Tigris  and  Mount  Zagros ; Haran,  Tel-Apni, 
Razappa  (Rezeph),  and  Amida,  towards  the  north-west  fron- 
tier ; Nazibina  (Nisibis),  on  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Kha- 
bour ; Sirki  (Circesium),  at  the  confluence  of  the  Khabour  with 
the  Euphrates  ; Anat  on  the  Euphrates,  some  way  below  this 
junction;  Tahiti,  Magarisi,  Sidikan,  Katni,  Beth-Khalupi,  &c., 
in  the  district  south  of  the  Sinjar,  between  the  lower  course  of 
the  Khabour  and  the  Tigris.  Here,  again,  as  in  the  case  of 
Chaldaea,9  it  is  impossible  at  present  to  locate  with  accuracy  all 
the  cities.  We  must  once  more  confine  ourselves  to  the  most 
important,  and  seek  to  determine,  either  absolutely  or  with  a 
certain  vagueness,  their  several  positions. 

It  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  ruins  opposite 
Mosul  are  those  of  Nineveh.  The  name  of  Nineveh  is  read  on 


6 Gen.  x.  11,  12. 

7 In  the  margin  we  have  flhh") 

translated  “ the  streets  of  the  city,” 

which  is  far  better  than  the  textual 
rendering.  Had  r’hoboth  been  the  name 
of  a place,  the  term  ’ir  would  scarcely 


have  been  added. 

8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 
vol  i.  p.  314 ; Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp. 
245,  246,  312,  313,  &c. ; Journal  of 
Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  pp.  303,  304. 

9 See  above,  p.  15. 


Chap.  I. 


IDENTIFICATION  OF  SITES  — NINEVEH. 


199 


the  bricks;  and  a uniform  tradition,  reaching  from  the  Arab 
conquest  to  comparatively  recent  times,1  attaches  to  the 
mounds  themselves  the  same  title.  They  are  the  most  exten- 
sive ruins  in  Assyria ; and  their  geographical  position  suits  per- 
fectly all  the  notices  of  the  geographers  and  historians  with 
respect  to  the  great  Assyrian  capital.2  As  a subsequent  chapter 
will  be  devoted  to  a description  of  this  famous  city,3  it  is 
enough  in  this  place  to  observe  that  it  was  situated  on  the  left 
or  east  bank  of  the  Tigris,  in  lat.  36°  21',  at  the  point  where  a 
considerable  brook,  the  Khosr-su,  falls  into  the  main  stream. 
On  its  west  flank  flowed  the  broad  and  rapid  Tigris,  the  “ arrow- 
stream,”  as  we  may  translate  the  word;4  while  north,  east,  and 
south,  expanded  the  vast  undulating  plain  whieh  intervenes 
between  the  river  and  the  Zagros  mountain-range.  Midway  in 
this  plain,  at  the  distance  of  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  miles  from 
the  city,  stood  boldly  up  the  Jabel  Maklub  and  Ain-sufra  hills, 
calcareous  ridges  rising  nearly  2000  feet  5 above  the  level  of  the 
Tigris,  and  forming  by  far  the  most  prominent  objects  in  the 
natural  landscape.6  Inside  the  Ain  Sufra,  and  parallel  to  it, 
ran  the  small  stream  of  the  Gomel,  or  Ghazir,  like  a ditch 
skirting  a wall,  an  additional  defence  in  that  quarter.  On  the 
south-east  and  south,  distant  about  fifteen  miles,  was  the  strong 
and  impetuous  current  of  the  Upper  Zab,  completing  the 
natural  defences  of  the  position,  which  was  excellently  chosen 
to  be  the  site  of  a great  capital. 


1 The  early  Arabian  geographers  and 
historians  mentioned  the  forts  of  Ninawi 
to  the  east  and  of  Mosul  to  the  west  of 
the  Tigris.  (As.  Soc.  Journ.  vol.  xii. 
p.  418,  note  4.)  To  prove  the  continuity 
of  the  tradition,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  quote  all  travellers,  from  Benjamin 
of  Tudela  to  Mr.  Layard,  who  disputes 
its  value,  but  does  not  deny  it. 

2 See  Herod,  i.  193;  Strab.  xvi.  1, 
§ 3;  Ptol.  vi.  1;  Plin.  vi.  13,  § 16; 
Amm.  Marc,  xviii.  7 ; Eustath.  ad  Dio- 
nys.  Perieg.  991. 

3 See  below,  ch.  iv. 

4 So  Strabo,  xi.  14,  § 8 ; Plin.  H.  N. 

vi.  27  ; Q.  Curt.  iv.  9,  § 16,  &c.  There 

are,  however,  some  difficulties  attaching 
to  this  etymology.  It  is  Arian,  not  Se- 


mitic— tigra , as  “ an  arrow,”  standing 
connected  with  the  Sanscrit  tij,  “ to 
sharpen,”  Armenian  teg,"ti  a javelin,” 
Persian  tigh , “ a blade,”  and  tir,  “ an 
arrow.”  Yet  it  was  used  by  /the  Jews, 
under  the  slightly  corrupted  form  of 
Dekel , (bpq),  as  early  as  Moses  (Gen.  ii. 
14),  and  by  the  Assyrians  about  b.c. 
1000.  ( Journal  of  As.  Soc.  vol.  xiv.  p. 

xcv.)  It  is  conjectured  that  there  wag 
a root  dik  in  ancient  Babylonian,  of 
cognate  origin  with  the  Sanscrit  tij , 
from  which  the  forms  Dekel,  Digla , or 
Diglath  were  derived. 

5 Capt.  Jones,  in  the  Journal  of  the 
As.  Soc.  vol.  xv.  p.  299* 

6 Ibid.  p.  298. 


200 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


South  of  Nineveh,  at  the  distance  of  about  twenty  miles  by 
the  direct  route  and  thirty  by  the  course  of  the  Tigris,7  stood 
the  second  city  of  the  empire,  Calah,  the  site  of  which  is 
marked  by  the  extensive  ruins  at  Nimrud.8  Broadly,  this  place 
may  be  said  to  have  been  built  at  the  confluence  of  the  Tigris 
with  the  Upper  Zab ; but  in  strictness  it  was  on  the  Tigris  only 


the  Zab  flowing  five  or  six  miles  further  to  the  south,9  and 
entering  the  Tigris  at  least  nine  miles  below  the  Nimrud  ruins.1 


7 So  Colonel  Chesney  ( Euphrates  Ex- 
pedition, vol.  i.  p.  21). 

8 Sir  H.  Rawlinson  and  Dr.  Hincks 

agree  in  reading  the  ancient  name  of 
this  city  as  Calah.  At  the  same  time  it 
is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  are  diffi- 
culties in  the  identification.  1.  Nimrud 
being  only  20  miles  from  Nineveh,  it  is 
difficult  to  find  room  for  Resen,  a “ great 
city”  (Gen.  x.  12)  between  them,  not  to 
mention  that  there  are  no  important 
ruins  in  this  position.  2.  Calah,  more- 


over, if  it  gave  name  to  Ptolemy’s  Cala- 
cine,  should  be  away  from  the  river,  for 
by  placing  Calacind  above  Adiabene,  he 
almost  certainly  meant  further  from  the 
river. 

9 Journal  of  As.  Soo.  vol.  xv.  p.  342. 
At  the  same  time  it  must  be  admitted 
that  water  from  the  Zab  was  conducted 
into  the  city  by  a canal  and  tunnel,  of 
which  more  will  be  said  in  another 
chapter. 

1 Chesney,  1.  s.  c. 


Chap.  I. 


CALAH,  NOW  NIMEUD. 


201 


These  ruins  'at  present  occupy  an  area  somewhat  short  of  a 
thousand  English  acres,2  which  is  little  more  than  one-half  of 
the  area  of  the  ruins  of  Nineveh ; but  it  is  thought  that  the 
place  was  in  ancient  times  considerably  larger,  and  that  the 
united  action  of  the  Tigris  and  some  winter  streams  has  swept 
away  no  small  portion  of  the  ruins.3  They  form  at  present  an 
irregular  quadrangle,  the  sides  of  which  face  the  four  cardinal 
points.  On  the  north  and  east  the  rampart  may  still  be  dis- 
tinctly traced.  It  was  flanked  with  towers  along  its  whole 
course,4  and  pierced  at  uncertain  intervals  by  gates,  but  was 
nowhere  of  very  great  strength  or  dimensions.  On  the  south 
side  it  must  have  been  especially  weak,  for  there  it  has  disap- 
peared altogether.  Here,  however,  it  seems  probable  that  the 
Tigris  and  the  Shor  Derreh  stream,  to  which  the  present  ob- 
literation of  the  wall  may  be  ascribed,  formed  in  ancient  times 
a sufficient  protection.  Towards  the  west,  it  seems  to  be  certain 
that  the  Tigris  (which  is  now  a mile  off)  anciently  flowed  close 
to  the  city.5  On  this  side,  directly  facing  the  river,  and  extend- 
ing along  it  a distance  of  600  yards,6  or  more  than  a third  of  a 
mile,  was  the  royal  quarter,  or  portion  of  the  city  occupied  by 
the  palaces  of  the  kings.  It  consisted  of  a raised  platform, 
forty  feet  above  the  level  of  the  plain,  composed  in  some  parts 
of  rubbish,  in  others  of  regular  layers  of  sun-dried  bricks,,  and 
cased  on  every  side  with  solid  stone  masonry,  containing  an 
area  of  sixty  English  acres,  and  in  shape  almost  a regular  rect- 
angle, 560  yards  long,  and  from  350  to  450  broad.7  The  plat- 
form was  protected  at  its  edges  by  a parapet,  and  is  thought  to 
have  been  ascended  in  various  places  by  wide  staircases,  or  in- 
clined ways,  leading  up  from  the  plain.8  The  greater  part  of  its 
area  is  occupied  by  the  remains  of  palaces  constructed  by 


2 Capt.  Jones,  in  the  Journal  of  the 
Asiatic  Soc.  yoI.  xy.  pp.  347-351. 

3 Ibid.  vol.  xv.  p.  347. 

4 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  656. 
3 Ibid.  1.  s.  c. ; As.  Soc.  Journal , vol. 

xv.  pp.  342,  343.  v 

6 See  Mr.  Layard’s  “Plan”  in  his 

Nineveh  and  Babylon , opp.  p.  655.  For 

the  present  state  of  the  ruins,  see  his 


Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  i.  opp.  p. 
331,  and  compare  the  chart  (supra,  p. 
200),  which  is  reduced  from  Captain 
F.  Jones’s  Survey. 

7 The  platform  is  not  quite  regular, 
being  broader  towards  the  south  than 
towards  the  north,  as  will  be  seen  in  the 
plan. 

8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  654. 


202 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


various  native  kings,  of  which  a more  particular  account  will  be 
given  in  the  chapter  on  the  architecture  and  other  arts  of  the 
Assyrians.9  It  contains  also  the  ruins  of  two  small  temples, 
and  abuts  at  its  north-western  angle  on  the  most  singular  struc- 
ture which  has  as  yet  been  discovered  among  the  remains  of  the 
Assyrian  cities.  This  is  the  famous  tower  or  pyramid  which 
looms  so  conspicuously  over  the  Assyrian  plains,  and  which  has 
always  attracted  the  special  notice  of  the  traveller.1  An  exact 
description  of  this  remarkable  edifice  will  be  given  hereafter. 


Great  Mound  of  Nimrud  or  Calah  (after  Layard). 


It  appears  from  the  inscriptions  on  its  bricks  to  have  been  com- 
menced by  one  of  the  early  kings,  and  completed  by  another. 
Its  internal  structure  has  led  to  the  supposition  that  it  was 
designed  to  be  a place  of  burial  for  one  or  other  of  these 
monarchs.  Another  conjecture  is,  that  it  was  a watch-tower ; 2 
but  this  seems  very  unlikely,  since  no  trace  of  any  mode  by 
which  it  could  be  ascended  has  been  discovered. 

Forty  miles  below  Calah,  on  the  opposite  bank  of  the  Tigris, 


9 See  below,  chap.  vi. 

1 Xenophon  describes  Calah,  which 
he  calls  Larissa  (compare  the  Lachisa, 
nop1?,  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch),  as 
u a vast  deserted  city,  formerly  inha- 
bited by  the  Medes  ; it  was,”  he  says, 
“ surrounded  by  a wall  25  feet  broad, 
100  feet  high,  and  nearly  seven  miles  in 
circumference,  built  of  baked  brick,  with 
a stone  basement  to  the  height  of  20  feet.” 
He  then  observes : “ ITap’  avr^v  ri]v 
tt6\iv  iiv  irvpapXs  XiQ'ivt),  rb  juev  edpos 
7r \e0pov,  rb  Se  i/if/os  bvo  TrKeOpow."  ( Anab . 
iii.  4r  § 9.)  Ctesias,  with  his  usual  ex- 


aggeration, made  the  width  nine  stades, 
and  the  height  eight  stades,  or  nearly  a 
mile  ! He  placed  the  pyramid  at  Ni- 
neveh, and  on  the  Euphrates ! (See 
Diod.  Sic.  ii.  7,  § 1.)  The  imposing 
effect  of  the  structure  even  now  is  wit- 
nessed to  by  Mr.  Layard  ( Nineveh  and  its 
Remains , vol.  i.  p.  4) ; Colonel  Rich 
( Kurdistan , vol.  ii.  p.  132) ; Colonel 
Chesney  (. Euphrates  Expedition , vol.  i. 
p.  21) ; and  Captain  Jones  (As.  Soc. 
Journal , vol.  xv.  pp.  348,  349). 

2 This  is  the  opinion  of  Captain  Jones 
(As.  Soc.  Journal,  vol.  xv.  p.  349). 


Chap.  I. 


ASSHUR  — DUR-SARGINA. 


203 


was  a third  great  city,  the  native  name  of  which  appears  to  have 
been  Asshur.  This  place  is  represented  by  the  ruins  at  Kileh- 
Sherghat,  which  are  scarcely  inferior  in  extent  to  those  at 
Nimrud  or  Calah.3  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  describe  minutely 
this  site,  as  in  general  character  it  closely  resembles  the  other 
ruins  of  Assyria.  Long  lines  of  low  mounds  mark  the  position 
of  the  old  walls,  and  show  that  the  shape  of  the  city  was  quad- 
rangular. The  chief  object  is  a large  square  mound  or  plat- 
form, two  and  a half  miles  in  circumference,  and  in  places  a 
hundred  feet  above  the  level  of  the  plain,  composed  in  part  of 
sun-dried  bricks,  in  part  of  natural  eminences,  and  exhibiting 
occasionally  remains  of  a casing  of  hewn  stone,  which  may  once 
have  encircled  the  whole  structure.  About  midway  on  the 
north  side  of  the  platform,  and  close  upon  its  edge,  is  a high 
cone  or  pyramid.  The  rest  of  the  platform  is  covered  with  the 
remains  of  walls  and  with  heaps  of  rubbish,  but  does  not  show 
much  trace  of  important  buildings.  This  city  has  been  sup- 
posed to  represent  the  Biblical  Kesen;  but  the  description  of 
that  place  as  lying  “ between  Nineveh  and  Calah”  seems  to 
render  the  identification  worse  than  uncertain. 

The  ruins  at  Kileh-Sherghat  are  the  last  of  any  extent  to- 
wards the  south,  possessing  a decidedly  Assyrian  character.  To 
complete  our  survey,  therefore,  of  the  chief  Assyrian  towns,  we 
must  return  northwards,  and,  passing  Nineveh,  direct  our  atten- 
tion to  the  magnificent  ruins  on  the  small  stream  of  the  Khosr- 
su,  which  have  made  the  Arab  village  of  Khorsabad  one  of  the 
best  known  names  in  Oriental  topography.  About  nine  miles 
from  the  north-east  angle  of  the  wall  of  Nineveh,  in  a direction 
a very  little  east  of  north,  stands  the  ruin  known  as  Khorsabad, 
from  a small  village  which  formerly  occupied  its  summit 4 — the 
scene  of  the  labours  of  M.  Botta,  who  was  the  first  to  disentomb 
from  among  the  mounds  of  Mesopotamia  the  relics  of  an 
Assyrian  palace.  The  enclosure  at  Khorsabad  is  nearly  square 
in  shape,  each  side  being  about  2000  yards  long.5  No  part  of 


3 See  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  i.  p.  5,  and  vol.  ii.  p.  44. 

4 M.  Botta  purchased  and  removed 

this  village  before  he  made  his  great  ex- 


cavations. {Letters  from  Nineveh , p.  57, 
note.) 

5 See  Captain  Jones’s  Survey , sheet  I. 


204 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


it  is  very  lofty,  but  the  walls  are  on  every  side  well  marked. 
Their  angles  point  towards  the  cardinal  points,  or  nearly  so; 
and  the  walls  themselves  consequently  face  the  north-east,  the 
north-west,  the  south-west,  and  the  south-east.  Towards  the 
middle  of  the  north-west  wall,  and  projecting  considerably  be- 
yond it,  was  a raised  platform  of  the  usual  character  ; and  here 
stood  the  great  palace,  which  is  thought  to  have  been  open 
to  the  plain,  and  on  that  side  quite  undefended.6 

Four  miles  only  from  Ehorsabad,  in  a direction  a little  west 
of  north,  are  the  ruins  of  a smaller  Assyrian  city,  whose  native 
name  appears  to  have  been  Tarbisa,  situated  not  far  from  the 
modern  village  of  Sherif-khan.  Here  was  a palace,  built  by 
Esarhaddon  for  one  of  his  sons,  as  well  as  several  temples  and 
other  edifices.  In  the  opposite  direction,  at  the  distance  of 
about  twenty  miles,  is  Keremles,  an  Assyrian  ruin,  whose  name 
cannot  yet  be  rendered  phonetically.7  West  of  this  site,  and 
about  half-way  between  the  ruins  of  Nineveh  and  Nimrud  or 
Calah,  is  Selamiyah,  a village  of  some  size,  the  walls  of  which 
are  thought  to  be  of  Assyrian  construction.8  We  may  conjecture 
that  this  place  was  the  Resen,  or  Dase,9  of  Holy  Scripture,  which 
is  said  to  have  been  a large  city,  interposed  between  Nineveh 
and  Calah.1  In  the  same  latitude,  but  considerably  further  to 
the  east,  was  the  famous  city  of  Arabil  or  Arbil,2  known  to  the 
Greeks  as  Arbela,  and  to  this  day  retaining  its  ancient  appel- 
lation. These  were  the  principal  towns,  whose  positions  can  be 
fixed,  belonging  to  Assyria  Proper,  or  the  tract  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  Nineveh. 

Besides  these  places,  the  inscriptions  mention  a large  number 
of  cities  which  we  cannot  definitely  connect  with  any  particular 


6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  657. 

7 The  name  is  formed  of  two  elements, 
the  first  meaning  city,  which  would  be 
Bur  or  Beth.  The  second  element  is  the 
name  of  a god  otherwise  unknown  to  us ; 
and  this,  being  a mere  monogram,  can- 
not be  represented  phonetically. 

8 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 
pp.  351  and  374. 

9 The  LXX.  interpreters  have  Aacr-fj 


in  the  place  of  the  Hebrew  |D").  The 
Targums  substitute  the  wholly  different 

name  of  Tel-Assar  (“IDK’^D). 

1 Gen.  x.  12. 

2 Arbil  is  etymologically  “ the  city  of 
the  four  go  is  ; ” but  it  is  not  known 
which  are  the  deities  intended.  This 
place  is  first  mentioned  in  the  reign  of 
Shamas-Vul,  the  son  of  the  Black  Obe- 
lisk king,  about  b.c.  850. 


Chap.  I. 


CITIES  OF  UNCERTAIN  SITE. 


205 


site.  Such  are  Zaban  and  Zadu,  beyond  the  Lower  Zab,  pro- 
bably somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  Kerkuk ; Kurban,  Tidu  (?), 
Napulu,  Kapa,  in  Adiabene ; Arapkha  and  Khaparkhu,  the 
former  of  which  names  recalls  the  Arrapachitis  of  Ptolemy,3  in 
the  district  about  Arbela  ; Hurakha,  Sallat  (?),  Dur-Tila,  Dariga, 
Lupdu,  and  many  others,  concerning  whose  situations  it  is  not 
even  possible  to  make  any  reasonable  conjecture.  The  whole 
country  between  the  Tigris  and  the  mountains  was  evidently 
studded  thickly  with  towns,  as  it  is  at  the  present  day  with 
ruins;4  but  until  a minute  and  searching  examination  of  the 
entire  region  has  taken  place,  it  is  idle  to  attempt  an  assign- 
ment to  particular  localities  of  these  comparatively  obscure 
names. 

In  Western  Assyria,  or  the  tract  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Tigris,  while  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  population  was  as 
dense,  and  that  cities  were  as  numerous,  as  on  the  opposite  side 
of  the  river,5  even  fewer  sites  can  be  determinately  fixed,  owing 
to  the  early  decay  of  population  in  those  parts,  which  seem  to 
have  fallen  into  their  present  desert  condition  shortly  after  the 
destruction  of  the  Assyrian  empire  by  the  conquering  Medes. 
Besides  Asshur,  which  is  fixed  to  the  ruins  at  Kileh-Sherghat, 
w^e  can  only  locate  with  certainty  some  half-dozen  places. 
These  are  Nazibina,  which  is  the  modern  Nisibin,  the  Nisibis  of 
the  Greeks ; Amidi,  which  is  Amida  or  Diarbekr ; Haran,6 
which  retains  its  name  unchanged ; Sirki,  wdiich  is  the  Greek 
Circesium,7  now  Kerkesiyeh ; Anat,  now  Anali,  on  an  island  in 
the  Euphrates ; and  Sidikan,  now  Arban,  on  the  Lower  Khabour. 
The  other  known  towns  of  this  region,  whose  exact  position  is 
more  or  less  uncertain,  are  the  following : — Tavnusir,  which  is 
perhaps  Dunisir,  near  Mardin;  Guzana,  or  Gozan,8  in  the 
vicinity  of  Nisibin  ; Bazappa,  or  Kezeph,  probably  not  far  from 


3 Geograph,  vi.  1.  Arapkha  would  be 
etymologically  “the  four  fish,”  a name 
not  very  intelligible.  It  was  certainly 
to  the  east  of  the  Tigris,  and  probably 
not  far  from  Arbela. 

4 Journal  of  Asiatic  Soc.  vol.  xv.  p.  304. 

5 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  i.  p.  315 ; Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp. 

245,  246. 


1 6 The  name  of  Haran  has  not,  I be- 

lieve, been  found  in  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions ; but  it  is  mentioned  in  Kings 
and  Chronicles  as  an  Assyrian  city. 
(2  Kings  xix.  12  ; 1 Chron.  v.  26.) 

7 See  Mr.  Fox  Talbot’s  Assyrian  Texts 
Translated,  p.  31. 

8 See  2 Kings,  1.  s.  c. 


20 6 THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  I. 

Harran;  Tel-Apni,  about  Orfah  or  Ras-el-Ain;  Tahiti  and 
Magarisi,  on  the  Jerujer,  or  river  of  Nisibin ; Katni  and  Beth- 
Khalupi,  on  the  Lower  Kbabour ; Tsupri  and  Nakarabani,  on 
the  Euphrates,  between  its  junction  with  the  Khabour  and 
Anah ; and  Khuzirina,  in  the  mountains  near  the  source  of  the 
Tigris.  Besides  these,  the  inscriptions  contain  a mention  of 
some  scores  of  towns  wholly  obscure,  concerning  which  we 
cannot  even  determine  whether  they  lay  west  or  east  of  the 
Tigris. 

Such  are  the  chief  geographical  features  of  Assyria.  It 
remains  to  notice  briefly  the  countries  by  which  it  was  bordered. 

To  the  east  lay  the  mountain  region  of  Zagros,  inhabited 
principally,  during  the  earlier  times  of  the  Empire,  by  the 
Zimri,  and  afterwards  occupied  by  the  Medes,  and  known  as  a 
portion  of  Media.  This  region  is  one  of  great  strength,  and  at 
the  same  time  of  much  productiveness  and  fertility.  Com- 
posed of  a large  number  of  parallel  ridges,  Zagros  contains, 
besides  rocky  and  snowr-clad  summits,  a multitude  of  fertile 
valleys,  watered  by  the  great  affluents  of  the  Tigris  or  their 
tributaries,  and  capable  of  producing  rich  crops  with  very 
little  cultivation.  The  sides  of  the  hills  are  in  most  parts 
clothed  with  forests  of  walnut,  oak,  ash,  plane,  and  sycamore, 
while  mulberries,  olives,  and  other  fruit-tree^  abound ; in  many 
places  the  pasturage  is  excellent ; and  thus,  notwithstanding  its 
mountainous  character,  the  tract  will  bear  a large  population.9 
Its  defensive  strength  is  immense,  equalling  that  of  Switzerland 
before  military  roads  were  constructed  across  the  High  Alps. 
The  few  passes  by  which  it  can  be  traversed  seem,  according  to 
the  graphic  phraseology  of  the  ancients,  to  be  carried  up  ladders 
they  surmount  six  or  seven  successive  ridges,  often  reaching 
the  elevation  of  10,000  feet,2  and  are  only  open  during  seven 


9 See  Rich’s  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  pp. 
48-192  ; Ker  Porter,  Travels , vol.  ii.  pp. 
137-219 ; Ainsworth,  Travels , vol.  ii. 
pp.  183-326 ; Layard,  Nineveh  and  its 
Jlemains,  vol.  i.  pp.  153-235  ; Nineveh 
and  Babylon , pp.  367-384,  and  416-436  ; 
Journal  of  Geographical  Society , vol.  ix. 
pp.  26-56,  &c. ; Fraser,  Travels  in  Kur- 


distan, vol.  i.  pp.  89-195;  vol.  ii.  pp. 
179-204. 

1 Diod.  Sic.  xix.  21,  § 2.  Compare 
Kinneir,  Persian  Empire , p.  74 ; and  see 
also  Ainsworth’s  Researches , pp.  224, 225. 

2 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  430  ; 
Journal  of  Geographical  Society , vol.  xvi. 
p.  49. 


Chap.  I.  COUNTRIES  BORDERING  ON  ASSYRIA— ARMENIA.  20J 


months  of  the  year.  Nature  appears  to  have  intended  Zagros 
as  a sevenfold  wall  for  the  protection  of  the  fertile  Mesopota- 
mian lowland  from  the  marauding  tribes  inhabiting  the  bare 
plateau  of  Iran. 

North  of  Assyria  lay  a country  very  similar  to  the  Zagros 
region.  Armenia,  like  Kurdistan,  consists,  for  the  most  part, 
of  a number  of  parallel  mountain  ranges,3  with  deep  valleys 
between  them,  watered  by  great  rivers  or  their  affluents.  Its 
highest  peaks,  like  those  of  Zagros,  ascend  considerably  above 
the  snow-line.4  It  has  the  same  abundance  of  wood,  especially 
in  the  more  northern  parts ; and  though  its  valleys  are  scarcely 
so  fertile,  or  its  products  so  abundant  and  varied,  it  is  still  a 
country  where  a numerous  population  may  find  subsistence. 
The  most  striking  contrast  which  it  offers  to  the  Zagros  region 
is  in  the  direction  of  its  mountain  ranges.  The  Zagros  ridges 
run  from  north-west  to  south-east,  like  the  principal  mountains 
of  Italy,  Greece,  Arabia,  Hindustan,  and  Cochin  China ; those 
of  Armenia  have  a course  from  a little  north  of  east  to  a little 
south  of  west,  like  the  Spanish  Sierras,  the  Swiss  and  Tyrolese 
Alps,  the  Southern  Carpathians,  the  Greater  Balkan,  the  Cilician 
Taurus,  the  Cyprian  Olympus,  and  the  Thian  Chan.  Thus  the 
axes  of  the  two  chains  are  nearly  at  right  angles  to  one  another, 
the  triangular  basin  of  Yau  occurring  at  the  point  of  contact, 
and  softening  the  abruptness  of  the  transition.  Again,  whereas 
the  Zagros  mountains  present  their  gradual  slope  to  the  Meso- 
potamian lowland,  and  rise  in  higher  and  higher  ridges  as  they 
recede  from  it,  the  mountains  of  Armenia  ascend  at  once  to 
their  full  height  from  the  level  of  the  Tigris,  and  the  ridges 
then  gradually  decline  towards  the  Euxine.  It  follows  from 
this  last  contrast,  that,  while  Zagros  invites  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Mesopotamian  plain  to  penetrate  its  recesses,  which  are  at 
first  readily  accessible,  and  only  grow  wild  and  savage  towards 
the  interior,  the  Armenian  mountains  repel  by  presenting  their 
greatest  difficulties  and  most  barren  aspect  at  once,  seeming, 
with  their  rocky  sides  and  snow-clad  summits,  to  form  an  almost 

3 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  6,  7.  Compare  Strab.  xi.  12,  § 4. 

4 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , yol.  i.  p.  69  ; Layard,  1.  s.  c. 


208 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  I. 


insurmountable  obstacle  to  an  invading  host.  Assyrian  history 
bears  traces  of  this  difference ; for  while  the  mountain  region 
to  the  east  is  gradually  subdued  and  occupied  by  the  people  of 
the  plain,  that  on  the  north  continues  to  the  last  in  a state  of 
hostility  and  semi-independence. 

West  of  Assyria  (according  to  the  extent  which  has  here  been 
given  to  it),  the  border  countries  were,  towards  the  south, 
Arabia,  and  towards  the  north,  Syria.  A desert  region,  similar 
to  that  which  bounds  Chaldma  in  this  direction,  extends  along' 
the  Euphrates  as  far  north  as  the  36th  parallel,  approaching 
commonly  within  a very  short  distance  of  the  river.  This  has 
been  at  all  times  the  country  of  the  wandering  Arabs.  It  is 
traversed  in  places  by  rocky  ridges  of  a low  elevation,  and  inter- 
cepted by  occasional  wadys ; but  otherwise  it  is  a continuous 
gravelly  or  sandy  plain,5  incapable  of  sustaining  a settled  popu- 
lation. Between  the  desert  and  the  river  intervenes  commonly 
a narrow  strip  of  fertile  territory,  which  in  Assyrian  times  was 
held  by  the  Tsukhi  or  Shuhites,  and  the  Aramaeans  or  Syrians. 
North  of  the  36th  parallel,  the  general  elevation  of  the  country 
west  of  the  Euphrates  rises.  There  is  an  alternation  of  bare 
undulating  hills  and  dry  plains,  producing  wormwood  and  other 
aromatic  plants.6  Permanent  rivers  are  found,  which  either 
terminate  in  salt  lakes  or  run  into  the  Euphrates.  In  places 
the  land  is  tolerably  fertile,  and  produces  good  crops  of  grain, 
besides  mulberries,  pears,  figs,  pomegranates,  olives,  vines,  and 
pistachio-nuts.7  Here  dwelt,  in  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  Empire, 
the  Khatti,  or  Hittites,  whose  chief  city,  Carchemish,  appears  to 
have  occupied  the  site  of  Hierapolis,  now  Bambuk.  In  a 
military  point  of  view,  the  tract  is  very  much  less  strong  than 
either  Armenia  or  Kurdistan,  and  presents  but  slight  difficulties 
to  invading  armies. 

The  tract  south  of  Assyria  was  Chaldsea,  of  which  a descrip- 
tion has  been  given  in  an  earlier  portion  of  this  volume.8 


5 Niebuhr,  Description  de  l\ Arabic,  p.  2. 

6 Ainsworth,  Travels  in  the  Track  of 

the  Ten  Thousand , p.  67 ; Pocock,  De- 

scription of  the  East,  vol.  ii.  pp.  150-172.  | 


7 Ainsworth,  Travels  and  Researches , 
vol.  i.  pp.  305-358  ; Pocock,  Description, 
fyc.,  vol.  ii.  p.  155. 

8 Supra,  pp.  3-14. 


Chap.  I. 


CHALDiEA. 


209 


Naturally,  it  was  at  once  the  weakest  of  the  border  countries 
and  the  one  possessing  the  greatest  attractions  to  a conqueror. 
Nature  had  indeed  left  it  wholly  without  defence ; and  though 
art  was  probably  soon  called  in  to  remedy  this  defect,  yet  it 
could  not  but  continue  the  most  open  to  attack  of  the  various 
regions  by  which  Assyria  was  surrounded.  Syria  was  defended 
by  the  Euphrates — at  all  times  a strong  barrier ; Arabia,  not 
only  by  this  great  stream,  but  by  her  arid  sands  and  burning 
climate ; Armenia  and  Kurdistan  had  the  protection  of  their 
lofty  mountain  ranges.  Chaldsea  was  naturally  without  either 
land  or  water  barrier ; and  the  mounds  and  dykes  whereby  she 
strove  to  supply  her  want  were  at  the  best  poor  substitutes  for 
Nature’s  bulwarks.  Here  again  geographical  features  will  be 
found  to  have  had  an  important  bearing  on  the  course  of  history, 
the  close  connexion  of  the  two  countries,  in  almost  every  age, 
resulting  from  their  physical  conformation. 


VOL.  1. 


P 


210 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


CHAPTEK  II. 

CLIMATE  AND  PRODUCTIONS. 

“ Assyria,  celebritate  et  magnitudine,  et  multiformi  feracitate  ditissima.” — 
Amm.  Marc,  xxiii.  6. 

In  describing  the  climate  and  productions  of  Assyria,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  divide  it  into  regions  ; since  the  country  is  so  large 
and  the  physical  geography  so  varied,  that  a single  description 
would  necessarily  be  both  incomplete  and  untrue.  Eastern 
Assyria  has  a climate  of  its  own,  the  result  of  its  position  at  the 
foot  of  Zagros.  In  Western  Assyria  we  may  distinguish  three 
climates,  that  of  the  upper  or  mountainous  country  extending 
from  Bir  to  Til  and  Jezireh,  that  of  the  middle  region  on  either 
side  of  the  Sinjar  range,  and  that  of  the  lower  region  imme- 
diately bordering  on  Babylonia.  The  climatic  differences  depend 
in  part  on  latitude ; but  probably  in  a greater  degree  on  differ- 
ences of  elevation,  distance  or  vicinity  of  mountains,  and  the 
like. 

Eastern  Assyria,  from  its  vicinity  to  the  high  and  snow-clad 
range  of  Zagros,  has  a climate  at  once  cooler  and  moister  than 
Assyria  west  of  the  Tigris.  The  summer  heats  are  tempered  by 
breezes  from  the  adjacent  mountains,  and,  though  trying  to  the 
constitution  of  an  European,  are  far  less  oppressive  than  the 
torrid  blasts  which  prevail  on  the  other  side  of  the  river.1  A 
good  deal  of  rain  falls  in  the  winter,  and  even  in  the  spring ; 
while,  after  the  rains  are  past,  there  is  frequently  an  abundant 
dew,2  which  supports  vegetation  and  helps  to  give  coolness  to 
the  air.  The  winters  are  moderately  severe.3 


1  Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv. 
p.  299.  Eastern  Assyria  is  not,  how- 
ever, entirely  free  from  the  “ torrid 
blasts,”  which  are  the  curse  of  these 

countries.  Mr.  Layard  experienced  at 

Koyunjik  “ the  sherghis , or  burning 


winds  from  the  south,  which  occasion- 
ally swept  over  the  country,  driving  in 
their  short-lived  fury  everything  before 
them.”  ( Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  364.) 

2 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  1.  s.  c. 

3 Ainsworth’s  Assyria,  p.  32. 


Chap.  II. 


PRESENT  CLIMATE  OF  ASSYRIA. 


2 1 1 


In  the  most  southern  part  of  Assyria,  from  lat.  31°  to  35°  30', 
the  climate  scarcely  differs  from  that  of  Babylonia,  which  has 
been  already  described.4  The  same  burning  summers,  and  the 
same  chilly,  but  not  really  cold,  winters  prevail  in  both  districts ; 
and  the  time  and  character  of  the  rainy  season  is  alike  in  each. 
The  summers  are  perhaps  a little  less  hot,  and  the  winters  a 
little  colder  than  in  the  more  southern  and  alluvial  region ; but 
the  difference  is  inconsiderable,  and  has  never  been  accurately 
measured. 

In  the  central  part  of  Western  Assyria,  on  either  side  of  the 
Sinjar  range,  the  climate  is  decidedly  cooler  than  in  the  region 
adjoining  Babylonia.  In  summer,  though  the  heat  is  great, 
especially  from  noon  to  sunset,5  yet  the  nights  are  rarely  oppres- 
sive, and  the  mornings  are  enjoyable.  The  spring-time  in  this 
region  is  absolutely  delicious ; 6 the  autumn  is  pleasant;  and  the 
winter,  though  cold  and  accompanied  by  a good  deal  of  rain  and 
snow,7  is  rarely  prolonged  and  never  intensely  rigorous.  Storms 
of  thunder  and  lightning  are  frequent,8  especially  in  spring,  and 
they  are  often  of  extraordinary  violence : hailstones  fall  of  the 
size  of  pigeon’s  eggs;9  the  lightning  is  incessant;  and  the  wind 
rages  with  fury.  The  force  of  the  tempest  is,  however,  soon 
exhausted ; in  a few  hours’  time  it  has  passed  away,  and  the  sky 
is  once  more  cloudless ; a delightful  calm  and  freshness  pervade 
the  air,  producing  mingled  sensations  of  pleasure  and  repose.1 

The  mountain  tract,  which  terminates  Western  Assyria  to  the 
north,  has  a climate  very  much  more  rigorous  than  the  central 
region.  The  elevation  of  this  district  is  considerable,2  and  the 
near  vicinity  of  the  great  mountain  country  of  Armenia,  with 
its  eternal  snows  and  winters  during  half  the  year,  tends  greatly 
to  lower  the  temperature,  which  in  the  winter  descends  to  eight 


4 Supra,  pp.  28-30. 

5 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol. 
i.  p.  106. 

6 See  Mr.  Layard’s  account  of  his  visit 
to  the  Sinjar  and  the  Khabour  in  1850. 
( Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp.  234-336  ; cf. 
particularly  pp.  246,  269,  273,  and  324.) 

7 Chesney,  1.  s.  c. 

8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 


vol.  i.  p.  124,  vol.  ii.  p.  54 ; Nineveh  and 
Babylon , pp.  242,  243,  and  294,  295  ; 
Rich’s  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  10. 

9  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  294  ; 
Jones,  Journal  of  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv. 
p.  360. 

1 Layard,  ibid.  p.  243. 

2 Mr.  Ainsworth  estimates  the  average 
elevation  at  1300  feet  ( Assyria , p.  29). 

P 2 


212 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


or  ten  degrees  below  zero.3  Much  snow  then  falls,  which  usually 
lies  for  some  weeks;  the  spring  is  wet  and  stormy,  but  the 
summer  and  the  autumn  are  fine ; and  in  the  western  portion  of 
the  region,  about  Harran  and  Orfah,  the  summer  heat  is  great. 
The  climate  is  here  an  “ extreme”  one,  to  use  an  expression  of 
Humboldt’s — the  range  of  the  thermometer  being  even  greater 
than  it  is  in  Chaldaea,  reaching  nearly  (or  perhaps  occasionally 
exceeding)  120  degrees.4 

Such  is  the  present  climate  of  Assyria,  west  and  east  of  the 
Tigris.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  very  different 
in  ancient  times.  If  irrigation  was  then  more  common  and 
cultivation  more  widely  extended,  the  temperature  would  no 
doubt  have  been  somewhat  lower  and  the  air  more  moist.  But 
neither  on  physical  nor  on  historical  grounds  can  it  be  argued, 
that  the  difference  thus  produced  was  more  than  slight.  The 
chief  causes  of  the  remarkable  heat  of  Mesopotamia — so  much 
exceeding  that  of  many  countries  under  the  same  parallels  of 
latitude — are  its  near  vicinity  to  the  Arabian  and  Syrian  deserts, 
and  its  want  of  trees,  those  great  refrigerators.5  While  the  first 
of  these  causes  would  be  wholly  untouched  by  cultivation,  the 
second  would  be  affected  in  but  a small  degree.  The  only  tree, 
which  is  known  to  have  been  anciently  cultivated  in  Mesopotamia, 
is  the  date-palm  ; and  as  this  ceases  to  bear  fruit 6 about  lat.  35°, 
its  greater  cultivation  could  have  prevailed  only  in  a very  small 
portion  of  the  country,  and  so  would  have  effected  the  general 
climate  but  little.  Historically,  too,  we  find,  among  the  earliest 
notices  which  have  any  climatic  bearing,  indications  that  the 
temperature  and  the  consequent  condition  of  the  country  were 
anciently  very  nearly  what  they  now  are.  Xenophon  speaks  of 
the  barrenness  of  the  tract  between  the  Khabour  and  Babylonia, 


3 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol. 
i.  p.  107. 

4 Colonel  Chesney  says : “ The  heat  in 
summer  is  110°  under  a tent.”  ( Eu- 
phrates Expedition , 1.  s.  c.)  Mr.  Ainsworth 
says  the  thermometer  reaches  115°  in  the 
shade  (p.  31). 

5 Humboldt  mentions  three  ways  in 

which  trees  cool  the  air,  viz.,  by  cooling 
shade,  by  evaporation,  and  by  radiation. 


“ Forests,”  he  says,  “ protect  the  ground 
from  the  direct  rays  of  the  sun,  evapo- 
rate fluids  elaborated  by  the  trees  them- 
selves, and  cool  the  strata  of  air  in  im- 
mediate contact  with  them  by  the  radia- 
tion of  heat  from  their  appendicular 
organs  or  leaves.”  ( Aspects  of  Nature , 
vol.  i.  p.  127,  E.  T.) 

6  Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol. 
i.  p.  106. 


Chap.  II. 


FERTILITY  OF  ASSYRIA. 


213 


and  the  entire  absence  of  forage  in  as  strong  terms  as  could 
be  used  at  the  present  day.7  Arrian,  following  his  excellent 
authorities,  notes  that  Alexander,  after  crossing  the  Euphrates, 
kept  close  to  the  hills,  “ because  the  heat  there  was  not  so  scorch- 
ing as  it  was  lower  down,  and  because  he  could  then  procure 
green  food  for  his  horses.”8  The  animals  too  which  Xenophon 
found  in  the  country  are  either  such  as  now  inhabit  it,9  or 
where  not  such,  they  are  the  denizens  of  hotter  rather  than 
colder  climates  and  countries.1 

The  fertility  of  Assyria  is  a favourite  theme  with  the  ancient 
writers.2  Owing  to  the  indefiniteness  of  their  geographical 
terminology,  it  is  however  uncertain,  in  many  cases,  whether 
the  praise  which  they  bestow  upon  Assyria  is  really  intended 
for  the  country  here  called  by  that  name,  or  whether  it  does 
not  rather  apply  to  the  alluvial  tract  already  described,  which 
is  more  properly  termed  Chaldsea  or  Babylonia.  Naturally 
Babylonia  is  very  much  more  fertile  than  the  greater  part  of 
Assyria,  which  being  elevated  above  the  courses  of  the  rivers, 
and  possessing  a saline  and  gypsiferous  soil,  tends,  in  the  absence 
of  a sufficient  water  supply,  to  become  a bare  and  arid  desert. 
Trees  are  scanty  in  both  regions  except  along  the  river  courses ; 
but  in  Assyria,  even  grass  fails  after  the  first  burst  of  spring ; 
and  the  plains,  which  for  a few  weeks  have  been  carpeted  with 
the  tenderest  verdure  and  thickly  strewn  with  the  brightest  and 
loveliest  flowers,3  become,  as  the  summer  advances,  yellow, 
parched,  and  almost  herbless.  Few  things  are  more  remarkable 
than  the  striking  difference  between  the  appearance  of  the  same 


7 Xen.  Andb.  i.  5,  § 5.  Ov  yap 
Xopros,  ovSe  &AA 0 Sevdpou  ouSev,  aAA & 
ipi A$7  v airatfa  7] 

8 Arrian,  Exp.  Alex.  iii.  7. 

9 As  bustards,  antelopes,  and  wild 
asses. 

1 As  the  ostrich.  It  is  curious  that 
Heeren  should  regard  the  wild  ass  as 
gone  from  Mesopotamia,  and  the  ostrich 
as  still  occurring.  (As.  Nat.  vol.  i.  pp. 
132,  133,  E.  T.)  His  statement  exactly 
inverts  the  truth. 

2 Herod,  i.  193;  Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 14; 
Dionys.  Perieg.  992-999 ; Plin.  H.  N. 
vi.  26  ; Amm.  Marc,  xxiii.  6,  &c. 


3  This  peculiarity  did  not  escape  Dio- 
nysius, a native  of  Charax,  on  the  Per- 
sian Gulf  (Plin.  H.  N.  vi.  27),  who  speaks 
feelingly  of  the  “ flowery  pastures  ” 
(i/oyovs  evavOeas)  of  Mesopotamia  (1. 
1000).  Mr.  Layard  constantly  alludes 
to  the  wonderful  beauty  of  the  spring 
flowers  in  the  country  at  the  foot  of  the 
Sinjar.  ( Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp.  268, 
273,  301,  &c.)  Mr.  Rich  notices  the 
same  features  in  the  country  near  Kerkuk 
( Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  47).  Captain  Jones 
remarks  similarly  of  the  tract  in  the 
vicinity  of  Nimrud.  (Journal  of  Asiatic 
Society,  vol.  xv.  pp.  372,  373.) 


214 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


tract  in  Assyria  at  different  seasons  of  the  year.  What  at  one 
time  is  a garden,  glowing  with  brilliant  hues  and  heavy  with 
luxuriant  pasture,  on  which  the  most  numerous  flocks  can 
scarcely  make  any  sensible  impression,  at  another  is  an  absolute 
waste,  frightful  and  oppressive  from  its  sterility.4 

If  we  seek  the  cause  of  this  curious  contrast,  we  shall  find  it 
in  the  productive  qualities  of  the  soil,  wherever  there  is  sufficient 
moisture  to  allow  of  their  displaying  themselves,  combined  with 
the  fact,  already  noticed,  that  the  actual  supply  of  water  is 
deficient.  Speaking  generally,  we  may  say  with  truth,  as  was 
said  by  Herodotus  more  than  two  thousand  years  ago — that 
“ but  little  rain  falls  in  Assyria,” 5 and,  if  water  is  to  be  supplied 
in  adequate  quantity  to  the  thirsty  soil,  it  must  be  derived  from 
the  rivers.  In  most  parts  of  Assyria  there  are  occasional  rains 
during  the  winter,  and  in  ordinary  years,  frequent  showers  in 
early  spring.  The  dependance  of  the  present  inhabitants  both 
for  pasture  and  for  grain  is  on  these.  There  is  scarcely  any 
irrigation ; 6 and  though  the  soil  is  so  productive  that  wherever 
the  land  is  cultivated,  good  crops  are  commonly  obtained  by 
means  of  the  spring  rains,  while  elsewhere  nature  at  once 
spontaneously  robes  herself  in  verdure  of  the  richest  kind,  yet 
no  sooner  does  summer  arrive  than  barrenness  is  spread  over  the 
scene ; the  crops  ripen  and  are  gathered  in ; “ the  grass 
withereth,  the  flower  fadeth;”7  the  delicate  herbage  of  the 
plains  shrinks  back  and  disappears ; all  around  turns  to  a 
uniform  dull  straw-colour;  nothing  continues  to  live  but  what 
is  coarse,  dry,  and  sapless ; and  so  the  land,  which  was  lately 
an  Eden,  becomes  a desert. 

Ear  different  would  be  the  aspect  of  the  region,  were  a due 
use  made  of  that  abundant  water  supply — actually  most  lavish 
in  the  summer  time,  owing  to  the  melting  of  the  snows8 — which 
nature  has  provided  in  the  two  great  Mesopotamian  rivers  and 
their  tributaries.  So  rapid  is  the  fall  of  the  two  main-streams 
in  their  upper  course,  that  by  channels  derived  from  them,  with 


4 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 
vol.  ii.  p.  70. 

5 Herod,  i,  193.  'H  777  tuu  'Kaav- 


p'luv  verai  p\v  okiycp. 

6 Layard,  ut  supra,  p.  69. 

7 Isaiah  xl  7.  8 See  above,  p.  12. 


Chap.  II. 


ANCIENT  PRODUCTS  OF  ASSYRIA. 


215 


the  help  perhaps  of  dams  thrown  across  them  at  certain  intervals, 
the  water  might  be  led  to  almost  any  part  of  the  intervening 
country,  and  a supply  kept  up  during  the  whole  year.  Or,  even 
without  works  of  this  magnitude,  by  hydraulic  machines  of  a 
very  simple  construction,  the  life-giving  fluid  might  be  raised 
from  the  great  streams  and  their  affluents  in  sufficient  quantity 
to  maintain  a broad  belt  on  either  side  of  the  riyer-courses  in 
perpetual  verdure.  Anciently,  we  know  that  recourse  was  had 
to  both  of  these  systems.  In  the  tract  between  the  Tigris  and 
the  Upper  Zab,  which  is  the  only  part  of  Assyria  that  has  been 
minutely  examined,  are  distinct  remains  of  at  least  one  Assyrian 
canal,  wherein  much  ingenuity  and  hydraulic  skill  is  exhibited, 
the  work  being  carried  through  the  more  elevated  ground  Iby 
tunnelling,  and  the  canal  led  for  eight 
miles  contrary  to  the  natural  course 
of  every  stream  in  the  district.9  Sluices 
and  dams,  cut  sometimes  in  the  solid 
rock,  regulated  the  supply  of  the  fluid 
at  different  seasons,  and  enabled  the 
natives  to  make  the  most  economical 
application  of  the  great  fertiliser.  The  Hand-swipe  (Koyunjik). 
use  of  the  hand-swipe  was  also  certainly 

known,  since  it  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus,1  and  even  repre- 
sented upon  the  sculptures.  Very  probably  other  more  elaborate 
machines  were  likewise  employed,  unless  the  general  prevalency 
of  canals  superseded  their  necessity.  It  is  certain  that  over 
wide  districts,  now  dependant  for  productive  power  wholly  on 
the  spring  rains,  and  consequently  quite  incapable . of  sustain- 
ing a settled  population,  there  must  have  been  maintained  in 
Assyrian  times  some  effective  water-system,  whereby  regions 
that  at  present  with  difficulty  furnish  a few  months’  subsistence 
to  the  wandering  Arab  tribes,  were  enabled  to  supply  to  scores 
of  populous  cities  sufficient  food  for  their  consumption.2 

We  have  not  much  account  of  the  products  of  Assyria  Proper 


9 See  the  account  of  these  works,  given 
by  Captain  Jones  in  the  Journal  of  the 
Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  pp.  310,  311. 
Compare  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Re- 


mains, vol.  i.  pp.  80,  81. 

1 Herodotus  calls  it  KeAowriiov  (i.  193). 

2 See  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p. 

241. 


2l6 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  II. 


in  early  times.  Its  dates  were  of  small  repute,  being  greatly 
inferior  to  those  of  Babylon.3  It  ;grew  a few  olives  in  places,4 
and  some  spicy  shrubs,5  which  cannot  be  identified  with  any 
certainty.  Its  cereal  crops  were  good,  and  may  perhaps  be 
regarded  as  included  in  the  commendations  bestowed  by 
Herodotus6  and  Strabo7  on  the  grain  of  the  Mesopotamian 
region.  The  country  was  particularly  deficient  in  trees,  large 
tracts  growing  nothing  but  wormwood  and  similar  low  shrubs,8 
while  others  were  absolutely  without  either  tree  or  bush.9  The 
only  products  of  Assyria  which  acquired  such  note  as  to  be 
called  by  its  name  were  its  silk 10  and  its  citron  trees.  The  silk, 
according  to  Pliny,  was  the  produce  of  a large  kind  of  silkworm 
not  found  elsewhere.11  The  citron  trees  obtained  a very  great 
celebrity.  Hot  only  were  they  admired  for  their  perpetual 
fruitage,  and  their  delicious  odour ; 12  but  it  was  believed  that 
the  fruit  which  they  bore  was  an  unfailing  remedy  against 
poisons.1  Numerous  attempts  were  made  to  naturalize  the  tree 
in  other  countries;  but  up  to  the  time  when  Pliny  wrote,  every 
such  attempt  had  failed,  and  the  citron  was  still  confined  to 
Assyria,  Persia,  and  Media.2 ; 

It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  the  vegetable  products  of  Assyria 
were  confined  within  the  narrow  compass  which  the  ancient 
notices  might  seem  to  indicate.  Those  notices  are  casual,  and 
it  is  evident  that  they  are  incomplete ; nor  will  a just  notion  be 
obtained  of  the  real  character  of  the  region,  unless  we  take  into 


3 Pliny  speaks  of  the  Assyrian  dates 
as  used  chiefly  for  fattening  pigs  and 
other  animals.  (Hist.  Nat.  xiii.  4, 
sub  fin.) 

4 As  in  Chalonitis.  (Plin.  H.  N.  vi.  27.) 

5 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 24,  sub  fin. ; Xen. 
Anab.  i.  5,  § I. 

8  Herod,  i.  192.  Mr.  Layard  remarks 
that  the  kinds  of  grain  mentioned  by 
Herodotus,  sesame,  millet,  wheat,  and 
barley,  still  constitute  “ the  principal 
agricultural  produce  of  Assyria.”  (Ni- 
neveh and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  423.) 

7 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 14. 

8 Xen.  Anab.  i.  5,  § 1. 

9 Ibid.  i.  5,  § 5.  See  the  passage 

quoted  at  length  in  note  7,  page  213. 


10  Pliny  speaks  of  “ Assyrian  silk  ” as 
a proper  dress  for  women.  (“  Assyria 
tamen  bombyce  adhuc  feminis  cedimus.” 
— H.  N.  xi.  23.) 

11  Ibid.  xi.  22. 

12  Ibid.  xii.  3.  “ Odore  prgecellit  foli- 

orum  quoque,  qui  transit  in  vestes  unk 
conditus  arcetque  animalium  noxia.  Ar- 
bor ipsa  omnibus  horis  pomifera  est, 
aliis  cadentibus,  aliis  maturescentibus, 
aliis  vero  subnascentibus.” 

1 Ibid.  1.  s.  c.  “ Malus  Assyria,  quam 
alii  Medicam  vocant,  venenis  medetur.” 
Compare  Yirg.  Georg,  ii.  126 ; Solin. 
49,  &c. 

2 Plin.  H.  N.  xii.  3 ; xvi.  32 ; Solin. 
1.  s.  c. 


Chap.  II. 


MODERN  VEGETABLE  PRODUCTS. 


217 


account  such  of  the  present  products  as  may  be  reasonably 
supposed  to  be  indigenous.  Now,  setting  aside  a few  plants  of 
special  importance  to  man,  the  cultivation  of  which  may  have 
been  introduced,  such  as  tobacco,  rice,  Indian  corn,  and  cotton, 
we  may  fairly  say  that  Assyria  has  no  exotics,  and  that  the  trees, 
shrubs,  and  vegetables  now  found  within  her  limits  are  the  same 
in  all  probability  as  grew  there  anciently.  In  order  to  complete 
our  survey,  we  may  therefore  proceed  to  inquire,  what  are  the 
chief  vegetable  products  of  the  region  at  the  present  time. 

In  the  south  the  date-palm  grows  well  as  far  as  Anah  on 
the  Euphrates  and  Tekrit  on  the  Tigris.  Above  that  latitude 
it  languishes,  and  ceases  to  give  fruit  altogether  about  the 
junction  of  the  Khabour  with  the  one  stream  and  the  Lesser 
Zab  with  the  other.3  The  unproductive  tree,  however,  which 
the  Assyrians  used  for  building  purposes,4  will  grow  and  attain 
a considerable  size  to  the  very  edge  of  the  mountains.5  Of 
other  timber  trees  the  principal  are  the  sycamore  and  the 
oriental  plane,  which  are  common  in  the  north ; the  oak,  which 
abounds  about  Mardin 6 (where  it  yields  gall-nuts  and  the  rare 
product  manna),  and  which  is  also  found  in  the  Sinjar  and 
Abd-el-Aziz  ranges ; 7 the  silver  poplar,  which  often  fringes  the 
banks  of  the  streams  ;8  the  sumac,  which  is  found  on  the  Upper 
Euphrates;9  and  the  walnut,  which  grows  in  the  Jebel  Tur, 
and  is  not  uncommon  between  the  foot  of  Zagros  and  the  out- 
lying ranges  of  hills.10  Of  fruit-trees  the  most  important  are 
the  orange,  lemon,  pomegranate,  apricot,  olive,  vine,  fig,  mul- 
berry, and  pistachio-nut.  The  pistachio-nut  grows  wild  in  the 
northern  mountains,  especially  between  Orfah  and  Diarbekr.11 
The  fig  is  cultivated  with  much  care  in  the  Sinjar.12  The  vine 


3 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol. 
i.  p.  107 ; Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Re- 
mains, vol.  ii.  p.  423. 

4 Strabo,  xvi.  1,  § 5 ; Plin.  H.  N. 
xiii.  4. 

5 Chesney,  1.  s.  c. ; Layard,  1.  s.  c. 

6 Niebuhr,  Voyage  en  Arabie,  p.  323. 

(Compare  his  Description  del’ Arabie,  p. 

128.)  Mr.  Berrington  observed  two 

species  of  oak  in  the  Jebel  Tur,  one  of 

which  he  identified  with  the  Valonia  oak. 


7 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp. 
256  and  312. 

8 Chesney,  p.  108. 

9 Ainsworth,  Assyria,  p.  34. 

10  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  366. 
Mr.  Berrington  found  walnuts  near  Ain 
Kaf  in  the  Jebel  Tur  range. 

11  Pocock,  Description  of  the  East , vol. 
ii.  pp.  158  and  163. 

12  It  is  grown  on  terraces,  like  the 
vine  in  Switzerland  and  on  the  banks 


218 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


is  also  grown  in  that  region,1  but  bears  better  on  the  skirts  of 
the  hills  above  Orfah  and  Mardin.2  Pomegranates  flourish  in 
various  parts  of  the  country.  Oranges  and  lemons  belong  to 
its  more  southern  parts,  where  it  verges  on  Babylonia.3  The 
olive  clothes  the  flanks  of  Zagros  in  places.4  Besides  these 
rarer  fruits,  Assyria  has  chesnuts,  pears,  apples,  plums,  cherries, 
wild  and  cultivated,  quinces,  apricots,  melons,  and  filberts. 

The  commonest  shrubs  are  a kind  of  wormwood — the  absin- 
thium of  Xenophon — which  grows  over  much  of  the  plain 
extending  south  of  the  Khabour5 — and  the  tamarisk.  Green 
myrtles,  and  oleanders  wflth  their  rosy  blossoms,  clothe  the 
banks  of  some  of  the  smaller  streams  between  the  Tigris  and 
Mount  Zagros;6  and  a shrub  of  frequent  occurrence  is  the 
liquorice  plant.7  Of  edible  vegetables  there  is  great  abun- 
dance. Truffles8  and  capers9  grow  wild;  while  peas,  beans, 
onions,  spinach,  cucumbers,  and  lentils  are  cultivated  success- 
fully.10 The  carob  ( Ceratonia  Siliqua)  must  also  be  mentioned 
as  among  the  rarer  products  of  this  region.11 

It  was  noticed  above  that  manna  is  gathered  in  Assyria  from 
the  dwarf  oak.  It  is  abundant  in  Zagros,  and  is  found  also  in 
the  woods  about  Mardin,  and  again  between  Orfah  and  Diarbekr. 
According  to  Mr.  Rich,  it  is  not  confined  to  the  dwarf  oak,  or 
even  to  trees  and  shrubs,  but  is  deposited  also  on  sand,  rocks, 
and  stone.12  It  is  most  plentiful  in  wet  seasons,  and  especially 
after  fogs ; 1 in  dry  seasons  it  fails  almost  totally.  The  natives 


of  the  Rhine.  (Layard,  Nin.  and  Babylon , 
pp.  254,  255.)  Niebuhr  speaks  of  the 
Sinjar  figs  as  in  great  request — “ fort 
recherches.”  ( Voyage  en  Arable , p.  315.) 

1 Layard,  1.  s.  c.  The  vine  is  also 
cultivated  at  Bavian  (Berrington)  and 
near  Kerkuk  (Rich,  Kurdistan , vol.  i. 
p.  50). 

2 Pocock,  vol.  ii.  p.  158;  Niebuhr,  p. 
318.  The  vine  was  at  one  time  culti- 
vated as  low  down  as  the  commencement 
of  the  alluvium.  See  Amm.  Mar.  xxiv. 
3 and  6. 

3 Layard,  p.  472  ; Loftus,  Chaldcea  and 
Susiana , p.  5 ; Rich,  Kurdistan , vol.  i. 

p.  26. 

4 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 
vol.  ii.  p.  423 ; Nin.  and  Bab.  pp.123, 132. 


5 Ainsworth,  Travels  in  the  Track  of 
the  Ten  Thousand , p.  76.  Wormwood 
abounds  also  near  Jumeila,  in  the  Kerkuk 
district  (Rich,  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  41). 

6 Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  pp.  216  and 

366.  7 Chesney,  1.  s.  c. 

8 Layard,  p.  315.  9 Chesney,  1.  s.  c. 

10  See  for  most  of  these  the  account  of 
Colonel  Chesney  (1.  s.  c.).  Lentils  are 
mentioned  by  Niebuhr  ( Voyage  en  Arabie, 
p.  295)  ; cucumbers  by  Mr.  Layard  (Am. 
and  Bab.  p.  224). 

11  Chesney,  1.  s.  c. 

12  Rich,  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  143.  Com- 
pare Chesney,  Euphrates  Exp.  vol.  i. 
p.  123. 

1 Chesney,  1.  s.  c.  Compare  Niebuhr, 

Description  de  l’ Arabie,  p.  128. 


Chap.  II. 


MANNA  — MINERALS. 


219 


collect  it  in  spring  and  autumn.  The  best  and  purest  is  that 
taken  from  the  ground ; but  by  far  the  greater  quantity  is 
obtained  from  the  trees,  by  placing  cloths  under  them  and 
shaking  the  branches.  The  natives  use  it  as  food  both  in  its 
natural  State  and  manufactured  into  a kind  of  paste.  It  soon 
corrupts ; and  in  order  to  fit  it  for  exportation,  or  even  for  the 
storeroom  of  the  native  housewife,  it  has  to  undergo  the  pro- 
cess of  boiling.8  When  thus  prepared,  it  is  a gentle  purgative ; 
but,  in  its  natural  state  and  when  fresh,  it  may  be  eaten  in  large 
quantities  without  any  unpleasant  consequences.2 3 

Assyria  is  far  better  supplied  with  minerals  than  Babylonia. 
Stone  of  a good  quality,  either  limestone,  sandstone,  or  conglo- 
merate, is  always  at  hand ; while  a tolerable  clay  is  also  to  be 
found  in  most  places.  If  a more  durable  material  is  required, 
basaltic  rock  may  be  obtained  from  the  Mons  Masius — a sub- 
stance almost  as  hard  as  granite.4  On  the  left  bank  of  the 
Tigris  a soft  grey  alabaster  abounds,  which  is  easily  cut  into 
slabs,  and  forms  an  excellent  material  for  the  sculptor.5  The 
neighbouring  mountains  of  Kurdistan  contain  marbles  of  many 
different  qualities ; and  these  could  be  procured  without  much 
difficulty  by  means  of  the  rivers.  From  the  same  quarter  it 
was  easy  to  obtain  the  most  useful  metals.  Iron,  copper,  and 
lead,  are  found  in  great  abundance  in  the  Tiyari  Mountains 
within  a short  distance  of  Nineveh  ; 6 where  they  crop  out  upon 
the  surface,  so  that  they  cannot  fail  to  be  noticed.  Lead  and 
copper  are  also  obtainable  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Diarbekr.7 
The  Kurdish  Mountains  may  have  supplied  other  metals.  They 
still  produce  silver  and  antimony;8  and  it  is  possible  that  they 
may  anciently  have  furnished  gold  and  tin.  As  their  mineral 
riches  have  never  been  explored  by  scientific  persons,  it  is  very 
probable  that  they  may  contain  many  other  metals  besides 
those  which  they  are  at  present  known  to  yield.9 


2 Chesney,  p.  124. 

3 Niebuhr,  p.  129. 

4 Layard,  Nin.  and  its  Remains , vol. 

ii.  p.  316. 

3 Ibid.  pp.  313,  314.  This  is  the  ma- 
terial universally  employed  for  the  bas- 

reliefs. 


6 Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  223  ; vol.  ii.  p.  415. 

7 Chesney,  vol.  i.  p.  108. 

8 Layard,  Nin.  and  its  Remains , vol. 
ii.  pp.  417-419. 

9 Mr.  Rich  observed  traces  of  iron  in 
more  places  than  one.  ( Kurdistan , vol. 
i.  pp.  176  and  222.) 


220 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chaf.  II. 


Among  the  mineral  products  of  Assyria — -bitumen,  naphtha, 
petroleum,  sulphur,  alum,  and  salt,  have  also  to  be  reckoned. 
The  bitumen  pits  of  Kerkuk,  in  the  country  between  the  Lesser 
Zab  and  the  Adhem,  are  scarcely  less  celebrated  than  those  of 
Hit ; 1 and  there  are  some  abundant  springs  of  the  same  cha- 
racter close  to  Nimrud,  in  the  bed  of  the  Shor  Derreh  torrent.2 
The  Assyrian  palaces  furnish  sufficient  evidence  that  the  springs 
were  productive  in  old  times ; for  the  employment  of  bitumen 
as  a cement,  though  not  so  frequent  as  in  Babylonia,  is  yet 
occasionally  found  in  them.3  With  the  bitumen  are  always 
procured  both  naphtha  and  petroleum  ; 4 while  at  Kerkuk  there 


is  an  abundance  of  sulphur  also.5  Salt  is  obtained  from  springs 
in  the  Kerkuk  country ; 6 and  is  also  formed  in  certain  small 
lakes  lying  between  the  Sinjar  and  Babylonia.7  Alum  is  plen- 
tiful in  the  hills  about  Kifri.8 

The  most  remarkable  wild  animals  of  Assyria  are  the  follow- 


1 See  Niebuhr’s  Voyage  en  Arabie,  p. 
275  ; Ker  Porter,  Travels , vol.  ii.  pp. 
440-442 ; Rich,  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  31  ; 
First  Memoir  on  Babylon , p.  63. 

2 Layard,  Kin.  and  Bab.  p.  202  ; Jones, 
Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  p.  371. 
The  position  of  the  chief  springs  is 
marked  in  the  plan,  supra,  p.  200.  There 
are  other  naphtha  springs  near  Kifri. 
(Rich,  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  29.) 

3 In  his  first  work  Mr.  Layard  doubted 

the  use  of  bitumen  as  a cement  in  As- 


syria (Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  278,  279)  ; but  subsequently  he  found 
some  traces  of  its  employment  ( Nin . and 
Bab.  p.  203,  &c.).  M.  Botta  represents 
the  use  of  it  as  common  both  at  Khor- 
sabad  and  Koyunjik  (. Letters  from  Nine- 
veh, p.  43). 

4 See  above,  p.  39. 

5 Ker  Porter,  Travels,  vol.  ii.  p.  441. 

6 Rich,  Kurdistan,  vol.  i.  p.  27. 

7 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  256. 

8 Rich,  p.  29. 


Chap.  II. 


WILD  ANIMALS. 


221 


ing : — the  lion,  the  leopard,  the  lynx,  the  wild-cat,  the  hyaena, 
the  wild-ass,  the  bear,  the  deer,  the  gazelle,  the  ibex,  the  wild- 
sheep,  the  wild-boar,  the  jackal,  the  wolf,  the  fox,  the  beaver, 
the  jerboa,  the  porcupine,  the  badger,  and  the  hare.  The 
Assyrian  lion  is  of  the  maneless  kind,  and  in  general  habits 
resembles  the  lion  of  Babylonia.  The  animal  is  comparatively 
rare  in  the  eastern  districts,  being  seldom  found  on  the  banks 
of  the  Tigris  above  Baghdad,  and  never  above  Kileh-Sherghat.9 


Ibex,  or  Wild-Goat,  from  Nimrud. 

On  the  Euphrates  it  has  been  seen  as  high  as  Bir  ; and  it  is 
frequent  on  the  banks  of  the  Khabour,  and  in  the  Sinjar.10  It 
has  occasionally  that  remarkable  peculiarity — so  commonly 
represented  on  the  sculptures — a short  horny  claw  at  the 
extremity  of  the  tail  in  the  middle  of  the  ordinary  tuft  of  hair.1 
The  ibex  or  wild-goat — also  a favourite  subject  with  the  Assyrian 
sculptors — is  frequent  in  Kurdistan,  and  moreover  abounds  on 
the  highest  ridges  of  the  Abd-el-Aziz  and  the  Sinjar,  where  it 


9 Layard,  Nin.  and  its  Remains , vol. 
ii.  p.  48. 

10  Ibid.  1.  s.  c.,  note.  For  its  fre- 


quency in  old  times,  see  Amm.  Marc, 
xviii.  7. 

1 Layard,  pp.  428,  429. 


222 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


is  approached  with  difficulty  by  the  hunter.2  The  gazelle,  wild- 
boar,  wolf,  jackal,  fox,  badger,  porcupine,  and  hare,  are  common 
in  the  plains,  and  confined  to  no  particular  locality.  The 
jerboa  is  abundant  near  the  Khabour.3  Bears  and  deer  are 
found  on  the  skirts  of  the  Kurdish  hills.  The  leopard,  hyaena, 
lynx,  and  beaver  are  comparatively  rare.  The  last-named 
animal,  very  uncommon  in  Southern  Asia,  was  at  one  time 
found  in  large  numbers  on  the  Khabour ; but  in  consequence 
of  the  value  set  upon  its  musk  bag,  it  has  been  hunted  almost 


Wild  Ass. 


to  extermination,  and  is  now  very  seldom  seen.  The  Khabour 
beavers  are  said  to  be  a different  species  from  the  American. 
Their  tail  is  not  large  and  broad,  but  sharp  and  pointed ; nor 
do  they  build  houses,  or  construct  dams  across  the  stream,  but 
live  in  the  banks,  making  themselves  large  chambers  above  the 
ordinary  level  of  the  floods,  which  are  entered  by  holes  beneath 
the  water-line.4 

The  rarest  of  all  the  animals  which  are  still  found  in  Assyria 


2 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , p. 
431.  Compare  Nin.  and  Bab.  pp.  256 
and  312. 

3 Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  271. 


4 Ibid.  pp.  296,  297.  Beavers  are 
also  found  in  the  Zohab  river,  a tri- 
butary of  the  Diyaleh. 


Chap.  II. 


THE  WILD  ASS. 


223 


is  the  wild  ass  ( Equus  hemionus).  Till  the  present  generation 
of  travellers,  it  was  believed  to  have  disappeared  altogether 
from  the  region,  and  to  have  “ retired  into  the  steppes  of  Mon- 


golia and  the  deserts  of  Persia.”5  But  a better  acquaintance 
with  the  country  between  the  rivers  has  shown,  that  wild  asses, 
though  uncommon,  still  inhabit  the  tract  where  they  were  seen 


by  Xenophon.6  They  are  delicately  made,  in  colour  varying 
from  a greyish-white  in  winter  to  a bright  bay,  approaching  to 
pink,  in  the  summer-time;  they  are  said  to  be  remarkably 


5 Heeren’s  Asiatic  Nations , vol.  i.  p. 
132,  E.  T. 

6 Anab.  i.  5,  § 2.  Xenophon  speaks  of 


them  as  numerous  in  his  day.  He  calls 
them  “ the  most  common  animal  ” for 
some  distance  below  the  Khabour. 


224 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


swift.  It  is  impossible  to  take  them  when  full  grown  ; but  the 
Arabs  often  capture  the  foals,  and  bring  them  up  with  milk  in 
their  tents.  They  then  become  very 
playful  and  docile ; but  it  is  found  diffi- 
cult to  keep  them  alive  ; and  they  have 
never,  apparently,  been  domesticated. 
The  Arabs  usually  kill  them  and  eat 
their  tlesh.7 

It  is  probable  that  all  these  animals, 
and  some  others,  inhabited  Assyria  dur- 
ing the  time  of  the  Empire.  Lions  of  two 
kinds,  with  and  without  manes,  abound  in 
the  sculptures,  the  former,  which  do  not 
now  exist  in  Assyria,  being  the  more 
common.  They  are  represented  with  a skill  and  a truth  which 
shows  the  Assyrian  sculptor  to  have  been  familiar  not  only  with 


7 Layard,  Nin.  and  its  Remains , vol.  i.  pp.  323,  324;  Nin.  and  Bah.  p.  270; 
Ainsworth,  Travels , p.  77. 


Chap.  II. 


DEER  AND  HARES. 


225 


their  forms  and  proportions,  but  with  their  natural  mode  of  life, 
their  haunts,  and  habits.  The  leopard  is  far  less  often  depicted, 
but  appears  sometimes  in  the  ornamentation  of  utensils,8  and  is 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  in- 
scriptions. The  wild  ass  is  a 
favourite  subject  with  the  sculp- 
tors of  the  later  Empire,  and  is 
represented  with  great  spirit, 
though  not  with  complete  accu- 
racy. The  ears  are  too  short,  the 
head  is  too  fine,  the  legs  are  not 
fine  enough,  and  the  form  alto- 
gether approaches  too  nearly  to 
the  type  of  the  horse.  The  deer,  the  gazelle,  and  the  ibex, 
all  occur  frequently ; and  though  the  forms  are  to  some  extent 


Fallow  Deer,  from  Koyunjik. 


Hare  and  Eagles,  from  Nimrud. 


conventional,  they  are  not  wanting  in  spirit.  Deer  are  appa- 
rently of  two  kinds.  That  which  is  most  commonly  found 
appears  to  represent  the  grey  deer,  which  is  the  only  species 
existing  at  present  within  the  confines  of  Assyria.9  The  other 
sort  is  more  delicate  in  shape,  and  spotted,  seeming  to  represent 
the  fallow  deer,  which  is  not  now  known  in  Assyria  or  the 
adjacent  countries.  It  sometimes  appears  wild,  lying  among 
the  reeds;  sometimes  tame,  in  the  arms  of  a priest  or  of  a 


8 See  the  woodcut,  p.  223. 

9 The  deer  which  the  army  of  Julian 
found  in  such  numbers  on  the  left  hank 


of  the  Euphrates,  a little  above  Anah, 
were  probably  of  this  species.  (Amm. 
Marc.  xxiv.  1.) 


VOL.  I. 


Q 


226 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


winged  figure.  There  is  no  representation  in  the  sculptures  of 
the  wild  boar ; hut  a wild  sow  and  pigs  are  given  in  one  bas- 
relief,10  sufficiently  indicating  the  Assyrian  acquaintance  with 
this  animal.  Hares  are  often  depicted,  and 
with  much  truth ; generally  they  are  carried 
in  the  hands  of  men,  but  sometimes  they  are 
being  devoured  by  vultures  or  eagles.11  No 
representations  have  been  found  of  bears, 
wild-cats,  hysenas,  wolves,  jackals,  wild-sheep, 
foxes,  beavers,  jerboas,  porcupines,  or  badgers. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  two  other 
animals,  which  have  now  altogether  disap- 
peared from  the  country,  inhabited  at  least 
some  parts  of  Assyria  during  its  flourishing 
period.  One  of  these  is  the  wild  bull — often 
represented  on  the  bas-reliefs  as  a beast  of 
chase,  and  perhaps  mentioned  as  such  in  the 
Hare,  from  Kharsabad.  inscriptions.1  This  animal,  which  is  some- 
times depicted  as  engaged  in  a contest  with 
the  lion,2  must  have  been  of  vast  strength 'and  boldness.  It  is 
often  hunted  by  the  king,  and  appears  to  have  been  considered 
nearly  as  noble  an  object  of  pursuit  as  the  lion.  We  may  pre- 
sume, from  the  practice  in  the  adjoining  country,  Palestine,3 
that  the  flesh  was  eaten  as  food. 

The  other  animal,  once  indigenous,  but  which  has  now  dis- 
appeared, was  called  by  the  Assyrians  the  mithin,  and  is  thought 
to  have  been  the  tiger.  Tigers  are  not  now  found  nearer  to 
Assyria  than  the  country  south  of  the  Caspian,  G-hilan,  and 


10  Supra,  p.  40.  Both  this  and  the 
representation  on  p.  225  of  a fallow-deer 
belong  to  the  decorations  of  Sennache- 
rib’s palace  at  Koyunjik.  They  are  given 
by  Mr.  Layard  in  his  “ Second  Series  ” 
of  the  Monuments  of  Nineveh , pi.  12. 

11  The  representation  on  p.  225  is  on 
one  of  the  beautiful  bronze  plates  or 
dishes  which  were  brought  by  Mr.  Lay- 
ard from  Nimrud,  and  are  now  in  the 
British  Museum.  The  dish  is  represented 
in  the  Monuments  of  Nineveh , second 
series,  pi.  62. 


1 See  the  Inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser 
/.,  pp.  54,  55,  where  both  Sir  H.  Raw- 
linson  and  Dr.  Hincks  understand  the 
wild-bull  to  be  intended.  Dr.  Hincks 
reads  the  word  used  as  Him,  which  would 
clearly  be  identical  with  the  Hebrew 
DiO,  or  D'H,  translated  in  our  version 
“ unicorn,”  and  sometimes  thought  to  be 
an  antelope,  but  understood  by  Gesenius 
to  designate  “ the  wild  buffalo.”  (See  his 
Lexicon  in  voc.) 

2 Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , first 

series,  pi.  46  and  48.  3 Deut.  xiv.  5. 


Chap.  II. 


BIRDS. 


227 


Mazanderan ; but  as  there  is  no  conceivable  reason  why  they 
should  not  inhabit  Mesopotamia,4  and  as  the  mithin  is  constantly 
joined  with  the  lion,  as  if  it  were  a beast  of  the  same  kind,  and 
of  nearly  equal  strength  and  courage,  we  may  fairly  conjecture 
that  the  tiger  is  the  animal  intended.  If  this  seem  too  bold  a 
theory,  we  must  regard  the  mithin  as  the  larger  leopard,5  an 
animal  of  considerable  strength  and  ferocity,  which,  as  well  as 
the  hunting  leopard,  is  still  found  in  the  country.6 

The  birds  at  present  frequenting  Assyria  are  chiefly  the  fol- 
lowing:— The  bustard  (which  is  of  two  kinds— the  great  and 
the  middle-sized),  the  egret,  the  crane,  the  stork,  the  pelican, 
the  flamingo,  the  red  partridge,  the  black  partridge  or  francolin, 


the  parrot,  the  Seleucian  thrush  (turdus  Seleucus),  the  vulture, 
the  falcon  or  hunting-hawk,  the  owl,  the  wild  swan,  the  bramin 
goose,  the  ordinary  wild  goose,  the  wild  duck,  the  teal,  the  tern, 
the  sand-grouse,  the  turtle-dove,  the  nightingale,  the  jay,  the 
plover,  and  the  snipe.7  There  is  also  a large  kite  or  eagle, 
called  “ agab,”  or  “ the  butcher,”  by  the  Arabs,  which  is  greatly 
dreaded  by  fowlers,  as  it  will  attack  and  kill  the  falcon  no  less 
than  other  birds. 

4 Diodorus  speaks  of  “ Babylonian 
tigers  ” as  among  the  animals  indigenous 
in  Arabia  (ii.  50,  § 2). 

5 This  animal  is  now  called  the  nimr. 

The  smaller  or  hunting-leopard  (now 
called  fahad ) is  the  nimr  of  the  Assy- 
rians, an  animal  of  which  the  inscrip- 
tions make  frequent  mention. 

6 Sir  H.  Rawlinson  brought  a speci- 
men of  the  larger  leopard,  which  he  had 

Q 2 


tamed,  from  Baghdad  to  England,  and 
presented  it  to  the  Clifton  Zoological 
Gardens.  Many  visitors  will  remember 
Fahad , who  died  in  the  Gardens  in  1858 
or  1859. 

7 The  authorities  for  this  list  are  Mr. 
Berrington,  Mr.  Layard,  and  Colonel 
Chesney.  (See  the  Euph.  Expedition , vol. 
i.  pp.  107, 108  ; and  Nineveh  and  Babylon , 
passim.) 


228 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


We  have  little  information  as  to  which  of  these  birds  fre- 
quented the  country  in  ancient  times.  The  Assyrian  artists 
are  not  happy  in  their  delineation  of  the  feathered  tribe ; and 


Ostrich,  from  a cylinder.  Ostrich,  from  Nimrud. 


though  several  forms  of  birds  are  represented  upon  the  sculp- 
tures of  Sargon  and  elsewhere,  there  are  but  three  which  any 

writer  has  ventured  to 
identify  — the  vulture, 
the  ostrich,  and  the  par- 
tridge. The  vulture  is 
commonly  represented 
flying  in  the  air,  in 
attendance  upon  the 
march  and  the  battle 
— sometimes  devouring, 
as  he  flies,  the  entrails 
of  one  of  Assyria’s  ene- 
mies. Occasionally  he  appears  upon  the  battle-field,  perched 
upon  the  bodies  of  the  slain,  and  pecking  at  their  eyes  or  their 

vitals.8  The  ostrich, 
which  we  know  from 
Xenophon  to  have  been 
a former  inhabitant  of 
the  country  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Euphrates,9 
but  which  has  now  re- 
treated into  the  wilds 
of  Arabia,  occurs  fre- 
quently upon  cylinders,  dresses,  and  utensils  ; sometimes  stalk- 


Partridges,  from  Khorsabad. 


See  especially  the  Monuments  of  Nineveh , second  series,  pi.  46.  9 Anab.  1.  s.  c. 


BIRDS. 


Chap.  II 


2^9 


ing  along  apparently  unconcerned ; sometimes  hastening  at  full 
speed,  as  if  pursued  by  the  hunter, 
and,  agreeably  to  the  descrip- 
tion of  Xenophon,  using  its  wing 
for  a sail.10  The  partridge  is 
still  more  common  than  either 
of  these.  He  is  evidently  sought 
as  food.  We  find  him  carried 
in  the  hand  of  sportsmen  return- 
ing from  the  chace,  or  see  him 

. . Unknown  birds  (Khorsabad). 

nymg  above  their  heads  as  they 

beat  the  coverts,1'  or  finally  observe  him  pierced  by  a suc- 


10  Tats  TTTepv^iv,  ’apaact, , fccnrep  tarries),  xp® P-svt).  Anab.  i.  5,  § 3. 
1 Monuments  of  Nineveh , second  series,  pi.  32. 


230 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


cessful  shot,  and  in  the  act  of  falling  a prey  to  his  pur- 
suers.2 

The  other  birds  represented  upon  the  sculptures,  though 
occasionally  possessing  some  marked  peculiarities  of  form  or 
habit,  have  not  yet  been  identified  with  any  known  species. 


They  are  commonly  represented  as  haunting  the  fir-woods,  and 
often  as  perched  upon  the  trees.3  One  appears,  in  a sculpture 
of  Sargon’s,  in  the  act  of  climbing  the  stem  of  a tree,  like  the 
nut-hatch  or  the  woodpecker.4  Another  has  a tail  like  a 


Mesopotamian  Sheep  (after  Layard). 


pheasant,  but  in  other  respects  cannot  be  said  to  resemble  that 
bird.  The  artist  does  not  appear  to  aim  at  truth  in  these  de- 
lineations, and  it  probably  would  be  a waste  of  ingenuity  to  con- 
jecture which  species  of  bird  he  intended. 

We  have  no  direct  evidence  that  bustards  inhabited  Meso- 


2 Botta,  Monumens  de  Ninive,  vol.  ii.  pi.  111.  3 Ibid.  Plates  109  to  112. 

4 Ibid.  PI.  110.  Compare  the  upper  woodcut,  supra,  p.  229. 


Chap.  II. 


FISH  — DOMESTIC  ANIMALS. 


231 


potamia  in  Assyrian  times;  but  as  they  have  certainly  been 
abundant  in  that  region  from  the  time  of  Xenophon 5 to  our 
own,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  they  existed  in  some  parts 
of  Assyria  during  the  Empire. 

Considering  their  size,  their 
peculiar  appearance,  and  the 
delicacy  of  their  flesh,  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  Assy- 
rian remains  furnish  no  trace 
of  them.  Perhaps,  as  they 
are  extremely  shy,  they  may 
have  been  comparatively  rare 
in  the  country  when  the 
population  was  numerous,  Loading  a Camel  (Koyunjik). 

and  when  the  greater  portion  of  the  tract  between  the  rivers  was 
brought  under  cultivation. 

The  fish  most  plentiful  in  Assyria  are  the  same  as  in  Baby- 
lonia,6 namely,  barbel  and 
carp.  They  abound  not  only 
in  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates, 
but  also  in  the  lake  of  Khu- 
taniyeh,  and  often  grow  to 
a great  size.7  Trout  are 
found  in  the  streams  which 
run  down  from  Zagros ; 8 and 
there  may  be  many  other 
sorts  which  have  not  yet 
been  observed.  The  sculp- 
tures represent  all  the  waters, 
whether  river,  pond, or  marsh, 
as  full  of  fish;9  but  the 
forms  are  for  the  most  part  too  conventional  to  admit  of  iden- 
tification. 

The  domestic  animals  now  found  in  Assyria  are  camels,  horses, 
asses,  mules,  sheep,  goats,  oxen,  cows,  and  dogs.  The  camels 


Head  of  an  Assyrian  Horse,  Koyunjik 
(after  Layard). 


5 Anab.  1.  s.  c. 

6 See  above,  p.  41. 

7 Chesney,  Euphrates  Exp.  vol. 


P- 


108  ; Layard,  Nin.  and  Babylon , p.  325. 

8 Rich,  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  143. 

9 See  woodcut  on  p.  229. 


232 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


are  of  three  colours — white,  yellow,  and  dark  brown  or  black.1 
They  are  probably  all  of  the  same  species,  though  commonly 
distinguished  into  camels  proper,  and  delouls  or  dromedaries  ; the 
latter  differing  from  the  others  as  the  English  race-horse  from 
the  cart-horse.  The  Bactrian  or  two-humped  camel,  though 
known  to  the  ancient  Assyrians,2  is  not  now  found  in  the  country. 
The  horses  are  numerous,  and  of  the  best  Arab  blood.  Small 


in  stature,  but  of  exquisite  symmetry  and  wonderful  powers  of 
endurance,  they  are  highly  prized  throughout  the  East,3  and 
constitute  the  chief  wealth  of  the  wandering  tribes  who  occupy 
the  greater  portion  of  Mesopotamia.  The  sheep  and  goats  are 
also  of  good  breeds,  and  produce  wool  of  an  excellent  quality.4 
The  cows  and  oxen  cannot  be  commended.5  The  dogs  kept  are 


1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  265. 

2 The  Bactrian  camel  is,  I believe, 
only  represented  on  the  famous  Black 
Obelisk,  where  it  appears  among  the 
presents  sent  to  the  king  from  foreign 
countries.  (See  woodcut  on  p.  230.) 

3 The  young  colts  fetch  prices  vary- 

ing from  30/.  to  150/.  A thousand 

pounds  is  no  uncommon  price  for  a well- 


known  mare.  Mr.  Layard  mentions  a 
case  where  a Sheikh  refused  for  a fa- 
vourite mare  no  less  a sum  than  1200/. 
(Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  327.) 

4 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol. 
i.  p.  108.  (Compare  woodcut  represent- 
ing Mesopotamian  sheep,  p.  230.) 

5 Ibid.  1.  s.  c. 


Chap.  II. 


HOESES  — MULES. 


233 


Mule  ridden  by  two  women  (Koyunjik). 


chiefly  greyhounds,6  which  are  used  to  course  the  hare  and  the 
gazelle. 

It  is  probable  that  in  ancient  times  the  animals  domesticated 
by  the  Assyrians  were  not  very  different  from  these.  The  camel 
appears  upon  the 
monuments  both  as 
a beast  of  burthen 
and  also  as  ridden 
in  war,  but  only  by 
the  enemies  of  the 
Assyrians.  The  horse 
is  used  both  for 
draught  and  for  rid- 
ing, but  seems  never 
degraded  to  ignoble 
purposes.7  His  breed 
is  good,  though  he 
is  not  so  finely  or 
delicately  made  as 
the  modern  Arab.  The  head  is  small  and  well  shaped,  the 
nostrils  large  and  high,  the  neck  arched,  but  somewhat  thick, 
the  body  compact, 
the  loins  strong,  the 
legs  moderately  slen- 
der and  sinewy.  The 
ass  is  not  found  ; but 
the  mule  appears, 
sometimes  ridden  by 
women,  sometimes 
used  as  a beast  of 
burthen,  sometimes 
employed  in  drawing 
a cart.  Cows,  oxen, 
sheep,  and  goats  are 
frequent ; but  they 
are  foreign  rather  than  Assyrian,  since  they  occur  only  among 

6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  246. 

7 The  horse  draws  chariots  and  not  carts.  He  is  never  used  as  a beast  of  burthen. 


234 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  II. 


the  spoil  taken  from  conquered  countries.  The  dog  is  frequent 
on  the  later  sculptures ; and  has  been  found  modelled  in  clay, 


No.  I.  Dog  modelled  in  clay,  from  the  palace  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  Koyunjik. 

and  also  represented  in  relief  on  a clay  tablet.  Their  character 
is  that  of  a large  mastiff  or  hound,  and  there  is  abundant  evi- 
dence that  they  were  employed  in  hunting.® 

If  the  Assyrians  domesticated  any  bird,  it  would  seem  to  have 


8 Dogs  are  constantly  represented  as 
engaged  in  the  chase  upon  the  sculp- 
tures of  Asshur-bani-pal  (Sardanapa- 
lus).  A number  of  his  hounds  were 
found  modelled  in  clay  at  Koyunjik. 


They  have  each  their  name  inscribed  on 
them,  which  is  always  a term  indicative 
of  their  hunting  prowess.  The  woodcut 
(No.  I.)  on  this  page  is  taken  from  one 
of  them. 


Chap.  II. 


DOGS  — DUCKS  — FISH  PONDS. 


235 


been  the  duck.  Models  of  the  duck  are  common,  and  seem 
generally  to  have  been  used  for  weights.9  The  bird  is  ordinarily 


represented  with  its  head  turned  upon  its  back,  the  attitude  of 
the  domestic  duck  when  asleep. 

The  Assyrians  seem  to  have 
had  artificial  ponds  or  stews, 
which  are  always  represented 
as  full  of  fish,  but  the  forms 
are  conventional,  as  has  been 
already  observed.1  Considering 
the  size  to  which  the  carp  and 
barbel  actually  grow  at  the  pre-  17  v y 

sent  day,  the  ancient  representations  are  smaller  than  might 
have  been  expected. 


Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  pp.  600,  601. 


1 Supra,  p.  231. 


236 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  PEOPLE. 

“The  Assyrian  * was  a cedar  in  Lebanon,  fair  of  branches,  and  with  a 
shadowing  shroud,  and  of  an  high  stature ; and  his  top  was  among  the  thick 

houghs Nor  was  any  tree  in  the  garden  of  God  like  unto  him  in  his 

beauty.” — Ezek.  xxxi.  3 and  8. 

The  ethnic  character  of  the  ancient  Assyrians,  like  that  of  the 
Chaldseans,  was  in  former  times  a matter  of  controversy.  When 
nothing  was  known  of  the  original  language  of  the  people  beyond 
the  names  of  certain  kings,  princes,  and  generals,  believed 
to  have  belonged  to  the  race,  it  was  difficult  to  arrive  at  any 
determinate  conclusion  on  the  subject.  The  ingenuity  of 
etymologists  displayed  itself  in  suggesting  derivations  for  the 
words  in  question,1  which  were  sometimes  absurd,  sometimes 
plausible,  but  never  more  than  very  doubtful  conjectures.  Ho 
sound  historical  critic  could  be  content  to  base  a positive  view 
on  any  such  unstable  foundation,  and  nothing  remained  but  to 
decide  the  controversy  on  other  than  linguistic  considerations. 

V arious  grounds  existed  on  which  it  was  felt  that  a conclusion 
could  be  drawn.  The  Scriptural  genealogies 2 connected  Asshur 
with  Aram,  Eber,  and  Joktan,  the  allowed  progenitors  of  the 
Aramaeans  or  Syrians,  the  Israelites  or  Hebrews,  and  the  northern 
or  Joktanian  Arabs.  The  languages,  physical  type,  and  moral 
characteristics  of  these  races  were  well  known  ; they  all  belonged 
evidently  to  a single  family — the  family  known  to  ethnologists 
as  the  Semitic.  Again,  the  manners  and  customs,  especially 
the  religious  customs,  of  the  Assj/^ians  connected  them  plainly 
with  the  Syrians  and  Phoenicians,  with  whose  practices  they 
were  closely  allied.3  Further,  it  was  observed  that  the  modern 
Chaldseans  of  Kurdistan,  who  regard  themselves  as  descendants 


1 See  Prichard’s  Physical  History  of 

Mankind , vol.  iv.  pp.  563,  564,  where  some 

of  the  supposed  derivations  are  given. 


3 See  this  argument  urged  by  Dr. 
Prichard,  Physical  Hist,  of  Mankind , vol. 
iv.  pp.  567,  568. 


Chap.  III. 


ETHNIC  CHARACTER  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 


237 


of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  the  neighbouring.  Assyria,  still 
speak  a Semitic  dialect.4  These  three  distinct  and  convergent 
lines  of  testimony  were  sufficient  to  justify  historians  in  the  con- 
clusion, which  they  commonly  drew,5  that  the  ancient  Assyrians 
belonged  to  the  Semitic  family,  and  were  more  or  less  closely 
connected  with  the  Syrians,6  the  (later)  Babylonians,  the 
Phoenicians,  the  Israelites,  and  the  Arabs  of  the  northern  por- 
tion of  the  peninsula. 

Recent  linguistic  discoveries  have  entirely  confirmed  the 
conclusion  thus  arrived  at.  We  now  possess  in  the  engraved 
slabs,  the  clay  tablets,  the  cylinders,  and  the  bricks,  exhumed 
from  the  ruins  of  the  great  Assyrian  cities,  copious  documentary 
evidence  of  the  character  of  the  Assyrian  language,  and  (so  far 
as  language  is  a proof)  of  the  ethnic  character  of  the  race.  It 
appears  to  be  doubted  by  none,  who  have  examined  the  evi- 
dence,7 * * * that  the  language  of  these  records  is  Semitic.  However 
imperfect  the  acquaintance  which  our  best  Oriental  archaeologists 
have  as  yet  obtained  with  this  ancient  and  difficult  form  of 
speech,  its.  connexion  with  the  Syriac,  the  later  Babylonian,  the 
Hebrew,  and  the  Arabic  does  not  seem  to  admit  of  a doubt. 

Another  curious  confirmation  of  the  ordinary  belief  is  to  be 
found  in  the  physical  characteristics  of  the  people,  as  revealed 
to  us  by  the  sculptures.  Few  persons  in  any  way  familiar  with 
these  works  of  art  can  have  failed  to  remark  the  striking  re- 
semblance to  the  Jewish  physiognomy  which  is  presented  by  the 
sculptured  effigies  of  the  Assyrians.  The  forehead  straight  but 


4 The  elder  Niebuhr  was  the  first  to 

report  this  fact.  (See  his  Voyage  en 
Arabie , p.  285.)  It  was  commonly  dis- 
believed till  Mr.  Ainsworth  confirm*-  11 
the  statement.  r 

5 See  B.  G.  Niebuhr’s  Lectures  on  An- 
cient History , vol.  i.  p.  12,  E.  T. ; Grote, 
Hist,  of  Greece,  vol.  iii.  p.  403  ; Bunsen, 
Essay  on  Ethnology  (1847),  p.  29. 

6 Niebuhr  went  so  far  as  to  identify 

the  Assyrians  with  the  Syrians ; but 

here  he  fell  into  a mistake.  The  Ara- 

maeans were  probably  as  distinct  from 

the  Assyrians  as  any  other  Semitic  race. 

Niebuhr  was  misled  by  the  Greek  fancy 


that  the  names,  “ Assyrian  ” and  “ Sy- 
rian,” were  really  identical.  (See  Herod, 
vii.  63.)  But  these  names  had,  in  truth, 
an  entirely  distinct  origin.  Syria  (more 
properly  Tsyria ) was  the  name  given  by 
the  Greeks  to  the  country  about  Tsur 
or  Tyre,  "1-1 X.  Assyria  was  the  cor- 
respondent term  to  Asshur,  "VlE^N, — the 
native,  as  well  as  the  Hebrew,  name  of 
the  tract  upon  the  middle  Tigris. 

7  See  Bunsen’s  Philosophy  of  History, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  193-216  ; Max  Muller,  Lan- 
guages of  the  Seat  of  War,  p.  25,  2nd  ed.  ; 
Oppert,  Elemens  de  la  Grammaire  Assy- 
rienne  ; &c. 


238 


* THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


not  high,  the  full  brow,  the  eye  large  and  almond-shaped,  the 
aquiline  nose,  a little  coarse  at  the  end,  and  unduly  depressed, 
the  strong,  firm,  mouth,  with  lips  somewhat  over  thick,  the  well- 
formed  chin — best  seen  in  the  representations  of  eunuchs — the 
abundant  hair  and  ample  beard,  both  coloured  as  black, — all 


these  recall  the  chief  peculiarities  of  the  Jew,  more  especially  as 
he  appears  in  southern  countries.  They  are  less  like  the  traits 
of  the  Arab,  though  to  them  also  they  bear  a considerable 
resemblance.  Chateaubriand’s  description  of  the  Bedouin — “ la 
tete  ovale,  le  front  haut  et  arque,  le  nez  aquilin , les  yeux  grands 


Mesopotamian  captives,  from  an  Egyptian  monument. 


Chap.  III. 


RESEMBLANCE  TO  JEWS. 


239 


et  coupes  en  amandes,  le  regard  humide  et  singulierement  doux” 8 
— would  serve  in  many  respects  equally  well  for  a description  of 
the  physiognomy  of  the  Assyrians,  as  they  appear  upon  the 
monuments.  The  traits,  in  fact,  are  for  the  most  part  common 
to  the  Semitic  race  generally,  and  not  distinctive  of  any  par- 
ticular subdivision  of  it.  They  are  seen  now  alike  in  the  Arab, 
the  Jew,  and  the  Chaldsean  of  Kurdistan;  while  anciently  they 
not  only  characterised  the  Assyrians,  but  probably  belonged  also 
to  the  Phoenicians,  the  Syrians,  and  other  minor  Semitic  races. 
It  is  evident,  even  from  the  mannered  and  conventional  sculp- 
tures of  Egypt,  that  the  physiognomy  was  regarded  as  cha- 
racteristic of  the  western  Asiatic  races.  Three  captives  on  the 
monuments  of  Amenophis  III.,9  represented  as  belonging  to  the 
Patana  (people  of  Bashan?),  the  Asuru  (Assyrians),  and  the 
Karukamishi  (people  of  Carchemish),  present  to  us  the  same 
style  of  face,  only  slightly  modified  by  Egyptian  ideas. 

While  in  face  the  Assyrians  appear  thus  to  have  borne  a most 
close  resemblance  to  the  Jews,  in  shape  and  make  they  are 
perhaps  more  nearly  represented  by  their  descendants,  the 
Ohaldseans  of  Kurdistan.  While  the  Oriental  J ew  has  a spare 
form  and  a weak  muscular  development,  the  Assyrian,  like  the 
modern  Chaldsean,1  is  robust,  broad-shouldered,  and  large-limbed. 
Nowhere  have  we  a race  represented  to  us  monumentally  of 
a stronger  or  more  muscular  type  than  the  ancient  Assyrian. 
The  great  brawny  limbs  are  too  large  for  beauty ; but  they 
indicate  a physical  power,  which  we  may  well  believe  to  have 
belonged  to  this  nation— the  Romans  of  Asia — the  resolute  and 
sturdy  people  which  succeeded  in  imposing  its  yoke  upon  all  its 
neighbours. 

If  from  physical  we  proceed  to  mental  characteristics,  we 
seem  again  to  have  in  the  Jewish  character  the  best  and  closest 
analogy  to  the  Assyrian.  In  the  first  place  there  is  observable 
in  each  a strong  and  marked  prominency  of  the  religious 
principle.  Inscriptions  of  Assyrian  kings  begin  and  end,  almost 


8 Itindraire , vol.  i.  p.  421.  9 Lepsius,  Denkmaler,  Abtheil.  iii.  Bl.  88. 

1 Rich,  Residence  in  Kurdistan , vol.  i.  p.  278. 


240 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


without  exception,  with  praises,  invocations,  and  prayers  to  the 
principal  objects  of  their  adoration.  All  the  monarch’s  suc- 
cesses, all  his  conquests  and  victories,  and  even  his  good  fortune 
in  the  chase,2  are  ascribed  continually  to  the  protection  and 
favour  of  guardian  deities.  Wherever  he  goes,  he  takes  care  to 
“ set  up  the  emblems  of  Asshur,”  or  of  “ the  great  gods ; ” and 
forces  the  vanquished  to  do  them  homage.  The  choicest  of  the 


spoil  is  dedicated  as  a thank-offering  in  the  temples.  The 
temples  themselves  are  adorned,  repaired,  beautified,  enlarged, 
increased  in  number,  by  almost  every  monarch.  The  kings 
worship  in  them  in  person,3  and  offer  sacrifices.4  They  embellish 
their  palaces,  not  only  with  representations  of  their  own  victories 
and  hunting  expeditions,  but  also  with  religious  figures — the 
emblems  of  some  of  the  principal  deities,5  and  with  scenes  in 


2 See  especially  the  Tiglath  - Pileser 
cylinder,  where  such  expressions  as  these 
occur: — “ Under  the  auspices  of  Ninip, 
my  guardian  deity,  I killed  four  wild 
bulls,  strong  and  fierce.”  “ Under  the 
auspices  of  Ninip,  120  lions  fell  before 
me”  (pp.  54-57). 

3 “ As  he  (Sennacherib)  was  worship- 
ping in  the  house  of  Nisroch  his  god” 
(2  Kings  xix.  37). 

4 Tiglath-Pileser  I.  speaks  of  sacri- 


ficing as  a part  of  the  kingly  office  ( In- 
scription,, &c.  p.  70). 

5  See  above,  pp.  132,  133,  137.  Ac- 
cording to  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  the 
later  inhabitants  of  the  country  were 
far  less  religious,  and  confined  their 
pictured  and  sculptured  representations 
to  battles  and  hunting-pieces.  (“  Nec 
enim  apud  eos  pingitur  vel  fingitur 
aliud  praeter  varias  [bestiarum]  caedes 
et  bella,”  xxiv.  6.) 


Chap.  III. 


RELIGIOUS  FEELING. 


24I 


which  are  portrayed  acts  of  adoration.  Their  signets,  and 
indeed  those  of  the  Assyrians  generally,6  have  a religious  cha- 
racter. In  every  way  religion  seems  to  hold  a marked  and  pro- 
minent place  in  the  thoughts  of  the  people,  who  fight  more  for 
the  honour  of  their  gods  than  even  of  their  king,  and  aim  at  ex- 
tending their  belief  as  much  as  their  dominion. 

Again,  combined  with  this  prominency  of  the  religious 
principle,  is  a sensuousness — such  as  we  observe  in  Judaism 
continually  struggling  against  a higher  and  purer  element — but 
which  in  this  less  favoured  branch  of  the  Semitic  family  reigns 
uncontrolled,  and  gives  to  its  religion  a gross,  material,  and  even 
voluptuous  character.  The  ideal  and  the  spiritual  find  little 
favour  with  this  practical  people,  which,  not  content  with 
symbols,  must  have  gods  of  wood  and  stone  whereto  to  pray, 
and  which  in  its  complicated  mythological  system,  its  priestly 
hierarchy,  its  gorgeous  ceremonial,  and  finally  in  its  lascivious 
ceremonies,7  is  a counterpart  to  that  Egypt,  from  which  the  Jew 
was  privileged  to  make  his  escape. 

The  Assyrians  are  characterised  in  Scripture  as  “a  fierce 
people.”8  Their  victories  seem  to  have  been  owing  to  their 
combining  individual  bravery  and  hardihood  with  a skill  and 
proficiency  in  the  arts  of  war  not  possessed  by  their  more  un- 
civilised neighbours.  This  bravery  and  hardihood  were  kept 
up,  partly  (like  that  of  the  Bomans)  by  their  perpetual  wars, 
partly  by  the  training  afforded  to  their  manly  qualities  by  the 
pursuit  and  destruction  of  wild  animals.  The  lion — the  king  of 
beasts — abounded  in  their  country,9  together  with  many  other 
dangerous  and  ferocious  animals.  Unlike  the  ordinary  Asiatic, 
who  trembles  before  the  great  beasts  of  prey  and  avoids  a 
collision  by  flight  if  possible,1  the  ancient  Assyrian  sought  out 
the  strongest  and  fiercest  of  the  animals,  provoked  them  to  the 
encounter,  and  engaged  with  them  in  hand-to-hand  combats. 


6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  421 ; Nin.  and  Bab.  pp.  603- 
605. 

7 See  below,  ch.  yiii. 

8 Isaiah  xxxiii.  19. 

9 “Inter  arundineta  Mesopotamiae 

VOL.  I. 


fluminum  et  fruteta  leones  vagantur  in- 
numeri.”  Amm.  Marc,  xviii.  7.  Tiglath- 
Pileser  I.  claims  to  have  slain  in  all  800 
lions.  ( Inscription , &c.  p.  56.) 

1 Loftus,  Chaldsea  and  Susiana,  pp. 
261,  262. 


R 


242 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  HI. 


The  spirit  of  Nimrod,  the  “ mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord,” 
not  only  animated  his  own  people,  but  spread  on  from  them  to 
their  northern  neighbours ; and,  as  far  as  we  can  judge  by  the 
monuments,  prevailed  even  more  in  Assyria  than  in  Chaldsea 
itself.  The  favourite  objects  of  chase  with  the  Assyrians  seem 
to  have  been  the  lion  and  the  wild-bull,  both  beasts  of  vast 


strength  and  courage,  which  could  not  be  attacked  without  great 
danger  to  the  bold  assailant. 

No  doubt  the  courage  of  the  Assyrians  was  tinged  with 
ferocity.  The  nation  was  “ a mighty  and  a strong  one,  which, 
as  a tempest  of  hail  and  a destroying  storm,  as  a flood  of  mighty 
waters  overflowing,  cast  down  to  the  earth  with  the  hand.”2 
Its  capital  might  well  deserve  to  be  called  “a  bloody  city,”  or 


2 Isaiah  xxviii.  2. 


Chaf.  III.  FIERCENESS  COMBINED  WITH  CLEMENCY. 


243 


“ a city  of  bloods.” 3 Few  conquering  races  have  been  tender- 
hearted, or  much  inclined  to  spare  ; and  undoubtedly  carnage, 
ruin,  and  desolation  followed  upon  the  track  of  an  Assyrian 
army,  and  raised  feelings  of  fear  and  hatred  among  their 
adversaries.  But  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  nation 


Captives  of  Sargon  (Khorsabad). 

* 

was  especially  bloodthirsty  or  unfeeling.  The  mutilation  of  the 
slain — not  by  way  of  insult,  but  in  proof  of  their  slayer’s  prowess 4 
— was  indeed  practised 
among  them  ; but 
otherwise  there  is  little 
indication  of  any  bar- 
barous— much  less  of 
any  really  cruel  — 
usages.  The  Assyrian 
listens  to  the  enemy 
who  asks  for  quarter,  Captive  Women  in  a cart  (Nimrud). 

he  prefers  making 

prisoners  to  slaying ; he  is  very  terrible  in  the  battle  and  the 
assault,  but  afterwards  he  forgives,  and  spares.  Of  course  in 
some  cases  he  makes  exceptions.  When  a town  has  rebelled 
and  been  subdued,  he  impales  some  of  the  most  guilty ; 5 and  in 


3 Nahum  iii.  1.  “ Woe  to  the  bloody 

city,” — or,  as  the  margin  gives  it — 
“Woe  to  the  city  of  bloods!”  (TJ?  'in 

D'P5). 

4 Probably  a reward  was  given  for 
heads,  as  has  often  been  the  fashion 


with  Orientals.  Sometimes  scribes  are 
represented  as  taking  account  of  them. 
(See  Layard,  Nin.  and  its  Remains , vol. 
ii.  p.  184.) 

5 Mr.  Layard  has,  I think,  expressed 
himself  too  strongly  when  he  says  that 

R 2 


244 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


two  or  three  instances  prisoners  are  represented 6 as  led  before 
the  king  by  a rope  fastened  to  a ring  which  passes  through  the 
under  lip,  while  now  and  then  one  appears  in  the  act  of  being 
flayed  with  a knife.7  But,  generally,  captives  are  either  released, 
or  else  transferred,  without  unnecessary  suffering,8  from  their 
own  country  to  some  other  portion  of  the  empire.  There  seems 
even  to  be  something  of  real  tenderness  in  the  treatment  of 
captured  women,  who  are  never  manacled,  and  are  often  allowed 
to  ride  on  mules,9  or  in  carts. 

The  worst  feature  in  the  character  of  the  Assyrians  was 
their  treachery.  “ Woe  to  thee  that  spoilest,  though  thou  wast 
not  spoiled,  and  dealest  treacherously,  though  they  dealt  not 
treacherously  with  thee  ! ” is  the  denunciation  of  the  evangelical 
prophet.1  And  in  the  same  spirit  the  author  of  “ the  Burthen 
of  Nineveh  ’’  declares  that  city  to  be  “ full  of  lies  and  robbery  ”2 
— or,  more  correctly,  “ full  of  lying  and  violence.”3  Falsehood 
and  treachery  are  commonly  regarded  as  the  vices  of  the  weak, 
who  are  driven  to  defend  themselves  against  superior  strength 
by  the  weapon  of  cunning ; but  they  are  perhaps  quite  as  often 
employed  by  the  strong,  as  furnishing  short  cuts  to  success,  and 
even  where  the  moral  standard  is  low,  as  being  in  themselves 
creditable.4  It  certainly  was  not  necessity  which  made  the 
Assyrians  covenant-breakers ; it  seems  to  have  been  in  part 
the  wantonness  of  power — because  they  “despised  the  cities 
and  regarded  no  man;”5  perhaps,  it  was  in  part  also  their  im- 


on  the  capture  of  a town  “ an  indiscri- 
minate slaughter  appears  to  have  suc- 
ceeded ; and  that  the  prisoners  were 
either  impaled  or  carried  away  as 
slaves.”  (Nin.  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii. 
p 374.)  It  appears,  by  the  inscriptions, 
that  towns  were  frequently  spared,  and 
that  the  bulk  of  the  inhabitants  were 
generally  left  in  the  place. 

6 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  PI.  83 
and  118. 

7 Ibid.  vol.  ii.  PI.  120;  Layard,  Mo- 
numents of  Nineveh , Second  Series,  PI.  47. 
Is  it  quite  certain  that  these  unfortunates 
are  alive?  The  Persians  and  Scythians 
sometimes  flayed  men  after  death,  in 
order  to  make  use  of  their  skins  (Herod, 
iv.  64  : v.  25). 


8 Captives  are  occasionally  represented 
as  urged  onwards  by  blows,  like  tired 
cattle ; and  they  are  sometimes  heavily 
fettered.  But  in  each  case  the  usage  is 
exceptional. 

9 See  above,  p.  233. 

1 Isaiah  xxxiii.  1. 

2 Nahum  iii.  1. 

3 Mr.  Yance  Smith  renders,  u full  of 
treachery  and  violence  ; ” which  is  pro- 
bably the  real  meaning.  But  the  word 
used  is  KTI3  “ mendacium,”  not  '132 
“ perfidia.” 

4 See  Thucyd.  iii.  83. 

s Isaiah  xxxiii.  8 ; “ He  hath  broken 
the  covenant,  he  hath  despised  the  cities, 
he  regardeth  no  man.” 


Chap.  III. 


PRIDE  — LUXURY. 


245 


perfect  moral  perception,  which  may  have  failed  to  draw  the 
proper  distinction  between  craft  and  cleverness. 

Another  unpleasant  feature  in  the  Assyrian  character — but 
one  at  which  we  can  feel  no  surprise — was  their  pride.  This  is 
the  quality  which  draws  forth  the  sternest  denunciations  of 
Scripture,  and  is  expressly  declared  to  have  called  down  the 
Divine  judgments  upon  the  race.6  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Zepha- 
niah  alike  dwell  upon  it.7  It  pervades  the  inscriptions.  With- 
out being  so  rampant  or  offensive  as  the  pride  of  some  Orientals 
— as,  for  instance,  the  Chinese — it  is  of  a marked  and  decided 
colour : the  Assyrian  feels  himself  infinitely  superior  to  all  the 
nations  with  whom  he  is  brought  into  contact ; he  alone  enjoys 
the  favour  of  the  gods ; he  alone  is  either  truly  wise  or  truly 
valiant;  the  armies  of  his  enemies  are  driven  like  chaff  before 
him  ; he  sweeps  them  away,  like  heaps  of  stubble ; either  they 
fear  to  fight,  or  they  are  at  once  defeated ; he  carries  his  vic- 
torious arms  just  as  far  as  it  pleases  him,  and  never  under  any 
circumstances  admits  that  he  has  suffered  a reverse.  The  only 
merit  that  he  allows  to  foreigners  is  some  skill  in  the  mecha- 
nical and  mimetic  arts,  and  his  acknowledgment  of  this  is  tacit 
rather  than  express,  being  chiefly  known  from  the  recorded 
fact  that  he  employs  foreign  artists  to  ornament  his  edifices. 

According  to  the  notions  which  the  Greeks  derived  from 
Ctesias,8  and  passed  on  to  the  Romans,  and  through  them  to 
the  moderns  generally,  the  greatest  defect  in  the  Assyrian 
character — the  besetting  sin  of  their  leading  men — was  luxu- 
riousness of  living  and  sensuality.  From  Ninyas  to  Sardana- 
palus — from  the  commencement  to  the  close  of  the  empire — 
a line  of  voluptuaries,  according  to  Ctesias  and  his  followers, 
held  possession  of  the  throne ; and  the  principle  was  established 
from  the  first,  that  happiness  consisted  in  freedom  from  all 


fi  Ezek.  xxxi.  10,  11;  “ Because  thou 
hast  lifted  up  thyself  in  height,  and  he 
hath  shot  up  his  top  among  the  thick 
boughs,  and  his  heart  is  lifted  up  in  his 
height ; I have  therefore  delivered  him 
into  the  hand  of  the  mighty  one  of  the 
heathen  ; he  shall  surely  deal  with  him : 
I have  driven  him  out  for  his  wicked- 


ness.” 

7 Isaiah  x.  7-14,  xxxvii.  24-28  ; Ezek. 
xxxi.  10;  Zeph.  ii.  15. 

8 Some  idea  of  notable  luxuriousness 
attaching  to  the  Assyrians  is,  perhaps, 
earlier  than  Ctesias.  (See  Aristoph.  Aves , 
958,  ed.  Bothe.)  Did  it  come  from  the 
5 A <ravpioi  A 6yoi  of  Herodotus  ? 


246 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  III. 


cares  or  troubles,  and  unchecked  indulgence  in  every  species  of 
sensual  pleasure.9  This  account,  intrinsically  suspicious,  is  now 
directly  contradicted  by  the  authentic  records  which  we  possess 
of  the  warlike  character  and  manly  pursuits  of  so  many  of  the 
kings.  It  probably,  however,  contains  a germ  of  truth.  In  a 
flourishing  kingdom,  like  Assyria,  luxury  must  have  gradually 
advanced ; and  when  the  empire  fell  under  the  combined  attack 
of  its  two  most  powerful  neighbours,  no  doubt  it  had  lost  much 
of  its  pristine  vigour.  The  monuments  lend  some  support  to 
the  view  that  luxury  was  among  the  causes  which  produced  the 
fall  of  Assyria ; although  it  may  be  questioned  whether,  even 
to  the  last,  the  predominant  spirit  was  not  warlike  and  manly, 
or  even  fierce  and  violent.  Among  the  many  denunciations  of 
Assyria  in  Scripture,  there  is  only  one  which  can  even  be 
thought  to  point  to  luxury  as  a cause  of  her  downfall ; and  that 
is  a passage  of  very  doubtful  interpretation.1  In  general  it  is 
her  violence,  her  treachery,  and  her  pride  that  are  denounced. 
When  Nineveh  repented  in  the  time  of  Jonah,  it  was  by  each 
man  “ turning  from  his  evil  way  and  from  the  violence  which 
was  in  their  hands.”2  When  Nahum  announces  the  final  de- 
struction, it  is  on  “ the  bloody  city,  full  of  lies  and  robbery .” 
In  the  emblematic  language  of  prophecy,  the  lion  is  taken  as 
the  fittest  among  animals  to  symbolise  Assyria,  even  at  this 
late  period  of  her  history.4  She  is  still  “ the  lion  that  did  tear 
in  pieces  enough  for  his  whelps,  and  strangled  for  his  lioness, 
and  filled  his  holes  with  prey,  and  his  dens  with  ravin.”  The 
favourite  national  emblem,  if  it  may  be  so  called,5  is  accepted 
as  the  true  type  of  the  people ; and  blood,  ravin,  and  robbery 
are  their  characteristics  in  the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  prophet. 

In  mental  power  the  Assyrians  certainly  deserve  to  be  con- 
sidered as  among  the  foremost  of  the  Asiatic  races.  They 


9 See  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  21,  § 2. 

1  Nahum  iii.  4 ; “ Because  of  the  mul- 
titude of  the  whoredoms  of  the  well- 
favoured  harlot,  the  mistress  of  witch- 
crafts, that  selleth  nations  through  her 
whoredoms,  and  families  through  her 
witchcrafts,  Behold,  I am  against  thee, 
saith  the  Lord.”  Idolatry  is  probably 
the  “ whoredom”  here  intended. 


2 Jonah  iii.  8. 

3 Nahum  iii.  1. 

4 Ibid.  ii.  11-13. 

5 The  frequent  occurrence  of  the  lion 
on  the  monuments,  either  in  the  natural 
form  or  with  a human  head,  seems  to 
justify  this  expression.  It  must  be  ad- 
mitted, however,  that  the  standards  bear 
a different  emblem.  See  below,  ch.  vii. 


Chap.  III. 


MENTAL  POWER. 


247 


had  not  perhaps  so  much  originality  as  the  Chaldseans,  from 
whom  they  appear  to  have  derived  the  greater  part  of  their 
civilisation;  but  in  many  respects  it  is  clear  that  they  sur- 
passed their  instructors,  and  introduced  improvements  which 
gave  a greatly  increased  value  and  almost  a new  character  to 
arts  previously  discovered.  The  genius  of  the  people  will  best 
be  seen  from  the  accounts,  hereafter  to  be  given,  of  their  lan- 
guage, their  arts,  and  their  system  of  government.  If  it  must 
be  allowed  that  these  have  all  a certain  smack  of  rudeness  and 
primitive  simplicity,  still  they  are  advances  upon  aught  that 
had  previously  existed — not  only  in  Mesopotamia — but  in  the 
world.  Fully  to  appreciate  the  Assyrians  we  should  compare 
them  with  the  much-lauded  Egyptians,  who  in  all  important 
points  are  very  decidedly  their  inferiors.  The  spirit  and 
progressive  character  of  their  art  offers  the  strongest  contrast 
to  the  stiff,  lifeless,  and  unchanging  conventionalism  of  the 
dwellers  on  the  Nile.  Their  language  and  alphabet  are  con- 
fessedly in  advance  of  the  Egyptian.6  Their  religion  is  more 
earnest  and  less  degraded.  In  courage  and  military  genius  their 
superiority  is  very  striking ; for  the  Egyptians  are  essentially 
an  un warlike  people.  The  one  point  of  advantage  to  which 
Egypt  may  fairly  lay  claim  is  the  grandeur  and  durability  of 
her  architecture.  The  Assyrian  palaces,  magnificent  as  they 
undoubtedly  were,  must  yield  the  palm  to  the  vast  structures 
of  Egyptian  Thebes.7  No  nation,  not  even  Eome,  has  equalled 
Egypt  in  the  size  and  solemn  grandeur  of  its  buildings.  But, 
exbept  in  this  one  respect,  the  great  African  kingdom  must  be 
regarded  as  inferior  to  her  Asiatic  rival — which  was  indeed 
“a  cedar  in  Lebanon,  exalted  above  all  the  trees  of  the  field 
— fair  in  greatness  and  in  the  length  of  his  branches — so  that 
all  the  trees  that  were  in  the  gardfen  of  God  envied  him,  and 
not  one  was  like  unto  him  in  his  beauty.” 8 


6 See  Bunsen’s  Philosophy  of  History , 
vol.  iii.  p.  192;  Egypt , vol.  iv.  pp.  144, 
638,  &c. 

7 Denon  says  of  Thebes,  with  equal 

force  and  truth  : — “ On  est  fatigue 
d’ecrire,  on  est  fatigue  de  lire,  on  est 
epouvante  de  la  pensee  d’une  telle  con- 
ception ; on  ne  peut  croire,  meme  apres 


l’avoir  vu,  a la  realite  de  l’existence  de 
tant  de  constructions  reunies  sur  un 
meme  point,  a leurs  dimensions,  a la 
Constance  obstinee  qu’a  exigee  leur  fabri- 
cation, aux  depenses  incalculables  de 
tant  de  sumptuosite.”  Egypte,  yol.  ii. 

p.  226. 

8 Ezek.  xxxi.  3-9. 


248 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IV. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CAPITAL. 

“ Fuit  et  Ninns,  imposita  Tigri,  ad  solis  occasum  spectans,  quondam  claris- 
sima.” — Plin.  H.  N.  vi.  13. 

The  site  of  the  great  capital  of  Assyria  had  generally  been 
regarded  as  fixed  with  sufficient  certainty  to  the  tract  imme- 
diately opposite  Mosul,  alike  by  local  tradition  and  by  the 
statements  of  ancient  writers,1  when  the  discovery  by  modern 
travellers  of  architectural  remains  of  great  magnificence  at 
some  considerable  distance  from  this  position,  threw  a doubt 
upon  the  generally  received  belief,  and  made  the  true  situation 
of  the  ancient  Nineveh  once  more  a matter  of  controversy. 
When  the  noble  sculptures  and  vast  palaces  of  Nimrud  were 
first  uncovered,  it  was  natural  to  suppose  that  they  marked 
the  real  site ; for  it  seemed  unlikely  that  any  mere  provincial 
city  should  have  been  adorned  by  a long  series  of  monarchs 
with  buildings  at  once  on  so  grand  a scale  and  so  richly  orna- 
mented. A passage  of  Strabo,  and  another  of  Ptolemy,2  were 
thought  to  lend  confirmation  to  this  theory,  which  placed  the 
Assyrian  capital  nearly  at  the  junction  of  the  Upper  Zab  with 
the  Tigris ; and  for  a while  the  old  opinion  was  displaced,  and 
the  name  of  Nineveh  was  attached  very  generally  in  this 
country  to  the  ruins  at  Nimrud. 

Shortly  afterwards  a rival  claimant  started  up  in  the  regions 
further  to  the  north.  Excavations  carried  on  at  the  village  of 


1 The  local  tradition  is  strikingly 
marked  by  the  Mahometan  belief  that 
on  the  smaller  of  the  two  mounds  oppo- 
site Mosul  is  “ the  tomb  of  Jonah ; ” 
whence  the  name  Nebbi -Yunus.  The 
most  important  of  the  ancient  authorities 
is  Xenophon  (Anab.  iii.  4,  §§  10-12). 

2 See  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Re- 
mains, vol.  ii.  p.  242.  Neither  passage 
is  correctly  represented  by  Mr.  Layard, 


Ptolemy  distinctly  places  Nineveh— not 
on  the  Lycus,  as  Mr.  Layard  says — but 
on  the  Tigris  ( Geograph . vi.  1) ; and 
Strabo,  though  he  does  not  actually  do 
the  same,  certainly  does  not  anywhere 
say  that  it  was  “ near  the  junction  of 
the  two  rivers.”  He  says  that  the  Lycus 
divided  Aturia  from  Arbelitis,  and  that 
Nineveh  was  situated  in  the  middle  of 
the  former  district  (xvi.  1,  § 3). 


Chap.  IY. 


THE  CAPITAL. 


249 


Khorsabad  showed,  that  a magnificent  palace  and  a consider- 
able town  bad  existed  in  Assyrian  times  at  that  site.  In  spite 
of  the  obvious  objection  that  the  Ivhorsabad  ruins  lay  at  the 
distance  of  fifteen  miles  from  the  Tigris,  which  according  to 
every  writer  of  weight3  anciently  washed  the  walls  of  Nineveh, 
it  was  assumed  by  the  excavator  that  the  discovery  of  the 
capital  had  been  reserved  for  himself,  and  the  splendid  work 
representing  the  Khorsabad  bas-reliefs  and  inscriptions,  which 
was  published  in  France  under  the  title  of  c Monument  de 
Ninive,’  caused  the  reception  of  M.  Botta’s  theory  in  many 
parts  of  the  Continent. 

After  a while  an  attempt  was  made  to  reconcile  the  rival 
claims  by  a theory,  the  grandeur  of  which  gained  it  acceptance, 
despite  its  improbability.  It  was  suggested  that  the  various 
ruins,  which  had  hitherto  disputed  the  name,  were  in  fact  all 
included  within  the  circuit  of  the  ancient  Nineveh ; which  was 
described  as  a rectangle,  or  oblong  square,  eighteen  miles  long 
and  twelve  broad.  The  remains  at  Khorsabad,  Koyunjik* 
Nimrud,  and  Keremles  marked  the  four  corners  of  this  vast 
quadrangle,4  which  contained  an  area  of  216  square  miles — 
about  ten  times  that  of  London  ! In  confirmation  of  this  view 
was  urged,  first,  the  description  in  Diodorus,5  derived  probably 
from  Ctesias,  which  corresponded  (it  was  said)  both  with  the 
proportions  and  with  the  actual  distances ; and  next,  the  state- 
ments contained  in  the  book  of  Jonah,6  which  (it  was  argued) 
implied  a city  of  some  such  dimensions.  The  parallel  of 
Babylon,  according  to  the  description  given  by  Herodotus,7 
might  fairly  have  been  cited  as  a further  argument ; since  it 
might  have  seemed  reasonable  to  suppose  that  there  was  no 
great  difference  of  size  between  the  chief  cities  of  the  two 
kindred  empires. 

3 Herod,  i.  193;  Nic.  Dam.  Fr.  9; 

Arrian.  Hist.  Ind.  42 ; Plin.  H.  N.  vi. 

13 ; Eustath.  ad  Dionys.  Perieg.  988 ; 

&c.  , It  is  perhaps  by  a slip  of  the  pen 
that  Diodorus  places  Nineveh  on  the 
Euphrates  (ii.  3). 

4 See  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  ii.  p.  247. 


J Diodorus  (1.  s.  c.)  made  Nineveh  an 
oblong  square  140  stades  (18f  miles) 
long,  and  ,90  stades  (Ilf  miles)  broad. 
Nimrud  is  eighteen  miles  from  Koyunjik, 
and  about  twelve  from  Keremles.  (Lay- 
ard,  1.  s.  c.) 

6 Ch.  iii.  ver.  3,  and  ch.  iv.  ver.  11. 

7 Book  i.  «h.  178. 


250 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IV. 


Attractive,  however,  as  this  theory  is  from  its  grandeur,  and 
harmonious  as  it  must  be  allowed  to  be  with  the  reports  of  the 
Greeks,  we  have  nevertheless  to  reject  it  on  two  grounds,  the 
one  historical  and  the  other  topographical.  The  ruins  of  Khor- 
sabad,  Keremles,  Nimrud,  and  Koyunjik  bear  on  their  bricks 
distinct  local  titles;  and  these  titles  are  found  attaching  to 
distinct  cities  in  the  historical  inscriptions.  Nimrud,  as  al- 
ready observed,  is  Calah;  and  Khorsabad  is  Dur-Sargina,  or 
“ the  city  of  Sargon.”  Keremles  has  also  its  own  appellation, 
Dur-  * * % “ the  city  of  the  God  Now  the  Assyrian 

writers  do  not  consider  these  places  to  be  parts  of  Nineveh, 
but  speak  of  them  as  distinct  and  separate  cities.  Calah  for 
a long  time  is  the  capital,  while  Nineveh  is  mentioned  as  a 
provincial  town.  Dur-Sargina  is  built  by  Sargon  not  at 
Nineveh,  but  “ near  to  Nineveh.”  Scripture,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, similarly  distinguishes  Calah  as  a place  separate 
from  Nineveh  and  so  far  from  it  that  there  was  room  for  “ a 
great  city  ” between  them.8  And  the  geographers,  while  they 
give  the  name  of  Aturia  or  Assyria  Proper  to  the  country  about 
the  one  town,9  call  the  region  which  surrounds  the  other  by 
a distinct  name,  Calachene.1  Again,  when  the  country  is  closely 
examined,  it  is  found,  not  only  that  there  are  no  signs  of  any 
continuous  town  over  the  space  included  within  the  four  sites 
of  Nimrud,  Keremles,  Khorsabad,  and  Koyunjik,  nor  any  re- 
mains of  walls  or  ditches  connecting  them,2  but  that  the  four 
sites  themselves  are  as  carefully  fortified  on  what,  by  the  theory 
we  are  examining,  would  be  the  inside  of  the  city  as  in  other 
directions.3  It  perhaps  need  scarcely  be  added,  unless  to  meet 
the  argument  drawn  from  Diodorus,  that  the  four  sites  in 


8 Gen.  x.  11,  12.  We  must  understand 
the  expression  “ a great  city,”  as  qua- 
lified by  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  is  used — a great  city  according  to  the 
size  of  cities  in  the  primeval  times.  The 
city  in  question  may  probably  have  oc- 
cupied the  site  of  the  ruins  at  Selamiyeh. 

9 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 1 ; Arrian.  Exp. 
Alex.  iii.  7 ; Plin.  H.  N.  v.  12. 

1  Supra,  p.  194. 


2 See  the  careful  surveys  of  Capt. 
Jones,  published  by  the  Royal  Asiatic 
Society.  ( Journal , vol.  xv.) 

3 See  the  plans  of  the  ruins  at  Nimrud 
and  Koyunjik  (pp.  200  and  253).  Koyun- 
jik, according  to  the  hypothesis,  would 
occupy  the  north-west  angle  of  the  town, 
and  its  southern  and  eastern  sides  would 
thus  be  within  the  town ; but  the  chief 
defences  are  those  on  the  east. 


Chap.  IV. 


THEORIES  AS  TO  ITS  SIZE,  EXAMINED. 


251 


question  are  not  so  placed  as  to  form  tlie  “oblong  square” 
of  bis  description,4  but  mark  the  angles  of  a rhombus  very 
much  slanted  from  the  perpendicular. 

The  argument  derived  from  the  book  of  J onah  deserves  more 
attention  than  that  which  rests  upon  the  #ithority  of  Diodorus 
and  Ctesias.  Unlike  Ctesias,  Jonah  saw  Nineveh  while  it  still 
stood ; and  though  the  writer  of  the  prophetical  book  may  not 
have  been  Jonah  himself,5  he  probably  lived  not  very  many 
years  later.6  Thus  his  evidence  is  that  of  a contemporary, 
though  (it  may  be)  not  that  of  an  eye-witness ; and,  even  apart 
from  the  inspiration  which  guided  his  pen,  he  is  entitled  to  be 
heard  with  the  utmost  respect.  Now  the  statements  of  this 
writer,  which  have  a bearing  on  the  size  of  Nineveh,  are  two. 
He  tells  us,  in  one  place,  that  it  was  “ an  exceeding  great  city, 
of  three  days’  journey;”7  in  another,  that  “in  it  were  more 
than  120,000  persons  who  could  not  discern  between  their  right 
hand  and  their  left.” 8 These  passages  are  clearly  intended  to 
describe  a city  of  a size  unusual  at  the  time ; but  both  of  them 
are  to  such  an  extent  vague  and  indistinct,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  draw  from  either  separately,  or  even  from  the  two  combined, 
an  exact  definite  notion.  “ A city  of  three  days’  journey  ” may 
be  one  which  it  requires  three  days  to  traverse  from  end  to  end, 
or  one  which  is  three  days’  journey  in  circumference,  or,  lastly, 
one  which  cannot  be  thoroughly  visited  and  explored  by  a 
prophet  commissioned  to  warn  the  inhabitants  of  a coming 
danger  in  less  than  three  days’  time.  Persons  not  able  to  dis- 
tinguish their  right  hand  from  their  left  may  (if  taken  literally) 
mean  children,  and  120,000  such  persons  may  therefore  indi- 
cate a total  population  of  600,000  ; or,  the  phrase  may  perhaps 


4 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  3. 

5 It  has  been  remarked  that  “the 

writer  of  the  hook  of  Jonah  nowhere 
identifies  himself  with  the  prophet.” 
(Vance  Smith,  Prophecies  on  Nineveh , p. 

252.)  “ On  the  contrary,  he  rather 

carefully  keeps  himself  distinct,  speak- 
ing of  Jonah  always  in  the  third  person, 
and  not  suggesting , by  a single  word  or 
implication , that  he  ever  thought  of 
being  regarded  as,  at  the  same  time, 


both  writer  and  subject  of  the  narrative.” 
All  this  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  it  does 
not  establish  the  negative. 

6 The  position  of  the  book  in  the  He- 
brew Canon,  between  Amos  and  Micah, 
shows  that  its  date  was  regarded  as  fall- 
ing between  Uzziah  (b.c.  808)  and  Heze- 
kiah  (b.c.  697).  Nineveh  was  not  de- 
stroyed till,  at  any  rate,  b.c.  625. 

7 Jonah  iii.  3. 

8 Ibid.  iv.  11. 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Ciiap.  IV. 


with  greater  probability  be  understood  of  moral  ignorance,  and 
the  intention  would  in  that  case  be  to  designate  by  it  all  the 
inhabitants.  If  Nineveh  was  in  Jonah’s  time  a city  containing 
a population  of  120,000,  it  would  sufficiently  deserve  the  title 
of  “ an  exceeding  gr£at  city ; ” and  the  prophet  might  well  be 
occupied  for  three  days  in  traversing  its  squares  and  streets. 
We  shall  find  hereafter  that  the  ruins  opposite  Mosul  have  an 
extent  more  than  equal  to  the  accommodation  of  this  number 
of  persons. 

The  weight  of  the  argument  from  the  supposed  parallel  case 
of  Babylon  must  depend  on  the  degree  of  confidence  which  can 
be  reposed  in  the  statement  made  by  Herodotus,  and  on  the 
opinion  which  is  ultimately  formed  with  regard  to  the  real  size 
of  that  capital.  It  would  be  improper  to  anticipate  here  the 
conclusions,  which  may  be  arrived  at  hereafter,  concerning  the 
real  dimensions  of  <£  Babylon  the  Great ; ” but  it  may  be  ob- 
served that  grave  doubts  are  entertained  in  many  quarters  as 
to  the  ancient  statements  on  the  subject,  and  that  the  ruins  do 
not  cover  much  more  than  one  twenty-fifth  of  the  space  which 
Herodotus  assigns  to  the  city. 

We  may,  therefore,  without  much  hesitation,  set  aside  the 
theory  which  would  ascribe  to  the  ancient  Nineveh  dimensions 
nine  or  ten  times  greater  than  those  of  London,  and  proceed 
to  a description  of  the  group  of  ruins  believed  by  the  best 
judges  to  mark  the  true  site. 

The  ruins  opposite  Mosul  consist  of  two  principal  mounds, 
known  respectively  as  Nebbi-Yunus  and  Koyunjik.  The  Ko- 
yunjik  mound,  which  lies  to  the  north-west  of  the  other,  at  the 
distance  of  900  yards,  or  a little  more  than  half  a mile,  is  very 
much  the  more  considerable  of  the  two.  Its  shape  is  an  irre- 
gular oval,  elongated  to  a point  towards  the  north-east,  in  the 
line  of  its  greater  axis.  The  surface  is  nearly  flat ; the  sides 
slope  at  a steep  angle,  and  are  furrowed  with  numerous  ravines, 
worn  in  the  soft  material  by  the  rains  of  some  thirty  centuries. 
The  greatest  height  of  the  mound  above  the  plain  is  towards 
the  south-eastern  extremity,  where  it  overhangs  the  small 
stream  of  the  Khosr;  the  elevation  in  this  part  being  about 


Chap.  IY. 


DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  RUINS. 


253 


ninety-five  feet.  The  area  covered  by  the  mound  is  estimated 
at  a hundred  acres,  and  the  entire  mass  is  said  to  contain 
14,500,000  tons  of  earth.  The  labour  of  a man  would  scarcely 
excavate  and  place  in  position  more  than  120  tons  of  earth 
in  a year;  it  would  require  therefore  the  united  exertions 
of  10,000  men  for  twelve  years,  or  20,000  men  for  six  years, 


to  complete  the  structure.1  On  this  artificial  eminence  were 
raised  in  ancient  times  the  palaces  and  temples  of  the  Assyrian 
monarchs,  which  are  now  imbedded  in  the  debris  of  their  own 
ruins. 

The  mound  of  Nebbi-Yunus  is  at  its  base  nearly  triangular. 


1 See  the  Journal  of  the  Asiatic.  Society , vol.  xv.  p.  326,  note  2. 


254 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  IV. 


It  covers  an  area  of  about  forty  acres.  It  is  loftier,  and  its  sides 
are  more  precipitous,  than  Koyunjik,  especially  on  the  west, 
where  it  abutted  upon  the  wall  of  the  city.  The  surface  is 
mostly  flat,  but  is  divided  about  the  middle  by  a deep  ravine, 
running  nearly  from  north  to  south,  and  separating  the  mound 
into  an  eastern  and  a western  portion.  The  so-called  tomb  of 
Jonah  is  conspicuous  on  the  north  edge  of  the  western  portion 
of  the  mound,  and  about  it  are  grouped  the  cottages  of  the 
Kurds  and  Turcomans  to  whom  the  site  of  the  ancient  Nineveh 
belongs.  The  eastern  portion  of  the  mound  forms  a burial- 
ground,  to  which  the  bodies  of  Mahometans  are  brought  from 
considerable  distances.  The  mass  of  earth  is  calculated  at  six 
and  a half  millions  of  tons;  so  that  its  erection  would  have 
given  full  employment  to  10,000  men  for  the  space  of  five  years 
and  a half. 

These  two  vast  mounds — the  platforms  on  which  palaces  and 
temples  were  raised — are  both  in  the  same  line,  and  abutted, 
both  of  them,  on  the  western  wall  of  the  city.  Their  position 
in  that  wall  is  thought  to  have  been  determined,  not  by  chance, 
but  by  design ; since  they  break  the  western  face  of  the  city 
into  three  nearly  equal  portions.2  The  entire  length  of  this 
side  of  Nineveh  was  13,600  feet,  or  somewhat  more  than  two  and 
a half  miles.  Anciently  it  seems  to  have  immediately  overhung 
the  Tigris,  which  has  now  moved  off  to  the  west,  leaving  a plain 
nearly  a mile  in  width  between  its  eastern  edge  and  the  old 
rampart  of  the  city.  This  rampart  followed,  apparently,  the 
natural  course  of  the  river-bank ; and  hence,  while  on  the  whole 
it  is  tolerably  straight,  in  the  most  southern  of  the  three  por- 
tions it  exhibits  a gentle  curve,  where  the  river  evidently  made 
a sweep,  altering  its  course  from  south-east  nearly  to  south. 

The  western  wall  at  its  northern  extremity  approaches  the 
present  course  of  the  Tigris,  and  is  here  joined,  exactly  at  right 
angles,  by  the  northern,  or  rather  the  north-western,  rampart, 


2 Capt.  Jones  notes  that  from  the 
N.W.  angle  of  the  city  to  the  centre  of 
the  Koyunjik  mound,  from  that  to  the 
centre  of  the  Nebbi- Yunus  mound,  and 


from  the  centre  of  the  Nebbi -Yunus 
mound  to  the  S.W.  angle  of  the  city,  are 
exactly  equal  distances.  ( Journal  of  Asi- 
atic Society,  vol.  xv.  p.  325.) 


Chap.  IV. 


KEAL  EXTENT  OF  NINEVEH. 


255 


which  runs  in  a perfectly  straight  line  to  the  north’ eastern 
angle  of  the  city,  and  is  said  to  measure  exactly  7000  feet.3 
This  wall  is  again  divided,  like  the  western,  hut  with  even 
more  preciseness,  into  three  equal  portions.  Commencing  at 
the  north-eastern  angle,  one-third  of  it  is  carried  along  com- 
paratively high  ground,  after  which  for  the  remaining  two- 
thirds  of  its  course  it  falls  by  a gentle  decline  towards  the 


Khosr-Su  and  Mound  of  Nebbi-Yunus  (after  Layard). 


Tigris.  Exactly  midway  in  this  slope  the  rampart  is  broken 
by  a road,  adjoining  which  is  a remarkable  mound,  covering 
one  of  the  chief  gates  of  the  city.4 

At  its  other  extremity  the  western  wall  forms  a very  obtuse 
angle  with  the  southern,  which  impends  over  a deep  ravine 
formed  by  a winter  torrent,  and  runs  in  a straight  line  for  about 


3 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  p.  322. 


4 Ibid.  p.  323. 


256 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chai\  IV. 


1000  yards,  when  it  meets  the  eastern  wall,  with  which  it  forms 
a slightly  acute  angle. 

It  remains  to  describe  the  eastern  wall,  which  is  the  longest, 
and  the  least  regular  of  the  four.  This  barrier  skirts’ the  edge 
of  a ridge  of  conglomerate  rock,  which  here  rises  somewhat 
above  the  level  of  the  plain,  and  presents  a slightly  convex 
sweep  to  the  north-east.  At  first  it  runs  nearly  parallel  to  the 
western,  and  at  right  angles  to  the  northern  wall ; but,  after 
pursuing  this  course  for  about  three  quarters  of  a mile,  it  is 
forced  by  the  natural  convexity  of  the  ridge  to  retire  a little, 
and  curving  gently  inwards  it  takes  a direction  much  more 
southerly  than  at  first,  thus  drawing  continually  nearer  to  the 
western  wall,  whose  course  is  almost  exactly  south-east.  The 
entire  length  of  this  wall  is  16,000  feet,  or  above  three  miles. 
It  is  divided  into  two  portions,  whereof  the  southern  is  some- 
what the  longer,  by  the  stream  of  the  Khosr-Su ; which,  coming 
from  the  north-west,  finds  its  way  through  the  ruins  of  the  city, 
and  then  runs  on  across  the  low  plain  to  the  Tigris. 

The  enceinte  of  Nineveh  forms  thus  an  irregular  trapezium, 
or  a “ triangle  with  its  apex  abruptly  cut  off  to  the  south.” 5 
The  breadth,  even  in  the  broadest  part  — that  towards  the 
north — is  very  disproportionate  to  the  length,  standing  to  it 
as  four  to  nine,  or  as  1 to  2*25.  The  town  is  thus  of  an  oblong 
shape,  and  so  far  Diodorus  truly  described  it;6  though  his 
dimensions  greatly  exceed  the  truth.  The  circuit  of  the  walls 
is  somewhat  less  than  eight  miles,  instead  of  being  more  than 
fifty ; and  the  area  which  they  include  is  1800  English  acres, 
instead  of  being  112,000  ! 

It  is  reckoned  that  in  a populous  Oriental  town  we  may 
compute  the  inhabitants  at  nearly,  if  not  quite,  a hundred  per 
acre.  This  allows  a considerable  space  for  streets,  open  squares, 
and  gardens  ; since  it  assigns  but  one  individual  to  every  space 
of  fifty  square  yards.  According  to  such  a mode  of  reckoning, 
the  population  of  ancient  Nineveh,  within  fhe  enceinte  here 
described,  may  be  estimated  at  175,000  souls.  No  city  of 
Western  Asia  is  at  the  present  day  so  populous. 


5 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  p.  324. 


Diod.  Sic.  ii.  3,  § 2. 


Chap.  IV. 


HEIGHT  OF  THE  WALLS. 


257 


In  the  above  description  of  the  ramparts  surrounding  Nineveh, 
no  account  has  been  given  of  their  width  or  height.  According 
to  Diodorus  the  wall  wherewith  Ninus  surrounded  his  capital  was 
100  feet  high,  and  so  broad  that  three  chariots  might  drive 
side  by  side  along  the  top.  Xenophon,  who  passed  close  to  the 
ruins  on  his  retreat  with  the  Ten  Thousand,  calls  the  height 
150  feet,  and  the  width  50  feet.7  The  actual  greatest  height  at 
present  seems  to  be  46  feet ; 8 but  the  debris  at  the  foot  of  the 
walls  are  so  great,  and  the  crumbled  character  of  the  walls 
themselves  is  so  evident,  that  the  chief  modern  explorer  inclines 
to  regard  the  computation  of  Diodorus  as  probably  no  exaggera- 
tion of  the  truth.9  The  width  of  the  walls,  in  their  crumbled 
condition,  is  from  100  to  200  feet. 

The  mode  in  which  the  walls  were  constructed  seems  to  have 
been  the  following.  Up  to  a certain  height — fifty  feet,  accord- 
ing to  Xenophon1 — they  were  composed  of  neatly-hewn  blocks 
of  a fossiliferous  limestone,  smoothed  and  polished  on  the  out- 
side.2 Above  this,  the  material  used  was  sun-dried  brick.  The 
stone  masonry  was  certainly  ornamented  along  its  top  by  a con- 
tinuous series  of  battlements  or  gradines  in  the  same  material ; 3 


and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  a similar  ornamentation  crowned  the 
upper  brick  structure.4  The  wall  was  pierced  at  irregular 


7 Anab.  iii.  4,  § 10.  I assume  that 
the  Mespila  of  Xenophon  is  identical 
with  the  ruins  opposite  Mosul.  There 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  reasonable  doubt 
of  this.  (See  Ainsworth,  Travels  in  the 
Track  of  the  Ten  Thousand , p.  140  ; 
Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  p. 
332.) 

8 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv. 
p.  322. 

9 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  660. 
“ The  remains  still  existing  of  these  for- 
tifications almost  confirm  the  statement 
of  Diodorus  Siculus,  that  the  walls  were 
a hundred  feet  high,”  &c. 

1 Anab.  iii.  4,  § 10.  The  excavations 
have  not  yet  tested  this  statement  of 

VOL.  I. 


Xenophon’s ; but,  as  his  estimate  of 
twenty  feet  is  exactly  correct  for  the 
stone  basement  of  the  walls  of  Nimrud 
(Larissa),  we  may  fairly  assume  that 
he  probably  did  not  much  miscalculate 
here.  (Cf.  Anab.  iii.  4,  § 7,  with  Layard’s 
Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp.  123,  125.) 

2 Aldov  |e(TToO  Koyxv Aidrov.  fAnab. 
iii.  4,  § 10.)  Mr.  Ainsworth  remarks 
that  this  fossiliferous  stone  is  the  com- 
mon building  material  at  Mosul,  but 
“ does  not  occur  far  to  the  north  or  to 
the  south,  being  succeeded  by  wastes  of 
gypsum.”  ( Travels  in  the  Track  of  the 
Ten  Thousand , p.  140.) 

3 Layard.  Nin.  and  Bab.,  p.  658. 

4 Ibid.,  note. 


S 


258 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IV. 


intervals  by  gates,  above  which  rose  lofty  towers ; while  towers, 
probably  of  lesser  elevation,  occurred  also  in  the  portions  of  the 
wall  intervening  between  one  gate  and  another.  A gate  in  the 
north-western  rampart  has  been  cleared  by  means  of  excava- 
tion, the  form  and  construction  of  which  will  best  appear  from 
the  annexed  ground-plan.  It  seems  to  have  consisted  of  three 
gateways,  whereof  the  inner  and  outer  were  ornamented  with 
colossal  human-headed  bulls  and  other  figures,  while  the  central 


one  was  merely  panelled  with  slabs  of  alabaster.  Between  the 
gateways  were  two  large  chambers,  70  feet  long  by  23  feet 
wide,  which  were  thus  capable  of  containing  a considerable 
body  of  soldiers.  The  chambers  and  gateways  are  supposed  to 
have  been  arched  over,  like  the  castles’  gates  on  the  bas-reliefs. 
The  gates  themselves  have  wholly  disappeared ; but  the  debris 
which  filled  both  the  chambers  and  the  passages  contained  so 
much  charcoal  that  it  is  thought  they  must  have  been  made, 
not  of  bronze,  like  the  gates  of  Babylon,5  but  of  wood.  The 


5 Herod,  i.  179. 


Chap.  IV. 


MOATS  — OUTER  DEFENCES. 


259 


ground  within  the  gateway  was  paved  with  large  slabs  of  lime- 
stone, still  bearing  the  marks  of  chariot  wheels.6 

The  castellated  rampart  which  thus  surrounded  and  guarded 
Nineveh  did  not  constitute  by  any  means  its  sole  defence.  Out- 
side the  stone  basement  wall  lay  on  every  side  a water  barrier, 
consisting  on  the  west  and  south  of  natural  river  courses ; on 
the  north  and  east,  of  artificial  channels  into  which  water  was 
conducted  from  the  Khosr-su.  The  northern  and  eastern  walls 
were  skirted  along  their  whole  length  by  a broad  and  deep 
moat,  into  which  the  Khosr-su  was  made  to  flow  by  occupying 
its  natural  bed  with  a strong  dam,  carried  across  it  in  the  line 
of  the  eastern  wall,  and  at  the  point  where  the  stream  now 
enters  the  enclosure.  On  meeting  this  obstruction,  of  which 
there  are  still  some  remains,  the  waters  divided,  and  while  part 
flowed  to  the  south-east,  and  reached  the  Tigris  by  the  ravine 
immediately  to  the  south  of  the  city,  which  is  a natural  water- 
course, part  turned  at  an  acute  angle  to  the  north-west,  and, 
washing  the  remainder  of  the  eastern  and  the  whole  of  the 
northern  wall,  gained  the  Tigris  at  the  north-west  angle  of 
the  city,  where  a second  dam  kept  it  at  a sufficient  height. 
Moreover,  on  the  eastern  face,  which  appears  to  have  been 
regarded  as  the  weakest,  a series  of  outworks  were  erected  for 
the  further  defence  of  the  city.  North  of  the  Khosr,  between 
the  city  wall  and  that  river,  which  there  runs  parallel  to  the 
wall,  and  forms  a sort  of  second  or  outer  moat,  there  are  traces 
of  a detached  fort  of  considerable  size,  which  must  have  greatly 
strengthened  the  defences  in  that  quarter.  South  and  south- 
east of  the  Khosr,  the  works  are  still  more  elaborate.  In  the 
first  place,  from  a point  where  the  Khosr  leaves  the  hills  and 
debouches  upon  comparatively  low  ground,  a deep  ditch,  200 
feet  broad,  was  carried  through  compact  silicious  conglomerate 
for  upwards  of  two  miles,  till  it  joined  the  ravine  which  formed 
the  natural  protection  of  the  city  upon  the  south.  On  either 
side  of  this  ditch,  which  could  be  readily  supplied  with  water 
from  the  Khosr  at  its  northern  extremity,  was  built  a broad 
and  lofty  wall ; the  eastern  one,  which  forms  the  outermost  of 

fi  Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  pp.  120-123. 

s 2 


26o 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  IY. 


Outer  defences  of  Nineveh,  in  their  present  condition  (after  Layard). 


Chap.  IY. 


INTERIOR  OF  THE  CITY. 


26l 


the  defences,  rises  even  now  a hundred  feet  above  the  bottom 
of  the  ditch  on  which  it  adjoins.  Further,  between  this  outer 
barrier  and  the  city  moat  was  interposed  a species  of  demi-lune, 
guarded  by  a double  wall  and  a broad  ditch,  and  connected  (as 
is  thought)  by  a covered  way  with  Nineveh  itself.7  Thus  the 
city  was  protected  on  this,  its  most  vulnerable  side,  towards  the 
centre  by  five  walls  and  three  broad  and  deep  moats ; towards 
the  north,  by  a wall,  a moat,  the  Khosr,  and  a strong  outpost ; 
towards  the  south,  by  two  moats  and  three  lines  of  rampart. 
The  breadth  of  the  whole  fortification  on  this  side  is  2200  feet, 
or  not  far  from  half  a mile.8 

Such  was  the  site,  and  such  were  the  defences,  of  the  capital 
of  Assyria.  Of  its  internal  arrangements  but  little  can  be  said 
at  present,  since  no  general  examination  of  the  space  within 
the  ramparts  has  been  as  yet  made,  and  no  ancient  account  of 
the  interior  has  come  down  to  us.  We  can  only  see  that  the 
side  of  the  city  which  was  most  fashionable  was  the  western, 
which  immediately  overhung  the  Tigris;  since  here  were  the 
palaces  of  the  kings,  and  here  seem  also  to  have  been  the  dwell- 
ings of  the  richer  citizens ; at  least,  it  is  on  this  side,  in  the 
space  intervening  between  Koyunjik  and  the  northern  rampart, 
that  the  only  very  evident  remains  of  edifices — besides  the  great 
mounds  of  Koyunjik  and  Nebbi-Yunus — are  found.9  The  river 
was  no  doubt  the  main  attraction ; but  perhaps  the  western  side 
was  also  considered  the  most  secure,  as  lying  furthest  from  the 
quarter  whence  alone  the  inhabitants  expected  to  be  attacked, 
namely,  the  east.  It  is  impossible  at  present  to  give  any 
account  of  the  character  of  the  houses  or  the  direction  of  the 
streets.  Perhaps  the  time  may  not  be  far  distant  when  more 
systematic  and  continuous  efforts  will  be  made  by  the  enterprise 
of  Europe  to  obtain  full  knowledge  of  all  the  remains  which 
still  lie  buried  at  this  interesting  site.  No  such  discoveries  are 
indeed  to  be  expected  as  those  which  have  recently  startled  the 
world ; but  patient  explorers  would  still  be  sure  of  an  ample 
reward,  were  they  to  glean  after  Layard  in  the  field  from  which 
he  swept  so  magnificent  a harvest. 


7 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  p.  322.  8 Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  660,  note. 

9 See  the  plan  (supra,  p.  253)  ; and  comp,  the  Journ.  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv.  p.  323. 


262 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


CHAPTER  V. 


LANGUAGE  AND  WRITING. 


“Tpappara  ’Ac ravpia” — Herod.  iv.  87. 


There  has  never  been  much  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
learned  with  regard  to  the  language  spoken  by  the  Assyrians. 
As  the  Biblical  genealogy  connected  Asshur  with  Eber  and 
Aram,1  while  the  Greeks  plainly  regarded  the  Syrians,  Assy- 
rians, and  Babylonians  as  a single  race,2  it  was  always  supposed 
that  the  people  thus  associated  must  have  possessed  a tongue 
allied,  more  or  less  closely,  to  the  Hebrew,  the  Syriac,  and  the 
Chaldee.  These  tongues  were  known  to  be  dialectic  varieties  of 
a single  form  of  speech — the  Semitic ; and  it  was  consequently 
the  general  belief,  before  any  Assyrian  inscriptions  had  been 
disinterred,  that  the  Assyrian  language  was  of  this  type,  either 
a sister  tongue  to  the  three  above  mentioned,  or  else  identical 
with  some  one  of  them.  The  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this 
theory  was  the  supposed  Medo-Persic  or  Arian  character  of  a 
certain  number  of  Assyrian  royal  names ; but  this  difficulty  was 
thought  to  be  sufficiently  met  by  a suggestion  that  the  ruling, 
tribe  might  have  been  of  Median  descent,  and  have  maintained 
its  old  national  appellatives,  while  the  mass  of  the  population 
belonged  to  a different  race.3  Recent  discoveries  have  shown 
that  this  last  suggestion  was  needless,  as  the  difficulty  which  it 
was  intended  to  meet  does  not  exist.  The  Assyrian  names, 
which  either  history  or  the  monuments  have  handed  down  to  us, 
are  Semitic,  and  not  Arian.  It  is  only  among  the  fabulous 
accounts  of  the  Assyrian  Empire  put  forth  by  Ctesias  that  Arian 


1 Gen.  x.  21-25. 

2 See  Herod,  vii.  63,  and  140  ; JEsch. 
Pers.  86 ; Xen.  Cyrop.  v.  4,  § 51,  &c. ; 
Scylax,  Peripl.  p.  80 ; Dionys.  Perieg. 

772  ; Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 2 ; Arrian,  Fr.  48  ; 
Plin.  H.  N.  12;  Mela,  i.  11,  for  the 
confusion  of  Assyrians  with  Syrians. 


For  the  close  connexion  and  almost  iden- 
tification of  the  Babylonians  with  the 
Assyrians,  see  Herod,  i.  106, 178  ; iii.  92  ; 
Strab.  1.  s.  c. ; &c. 

3  Prichard,  Physical  History  of  Man- 
kind, vol.  iv.  p.  568. 


ASSYRIAN  LANGUAGE  AND  WRITING. 


Chap.  V. 


263 


names,  such  as  Xerxes,  Arius,  Armamithres,  Mithraeus,  &c.,  are 
to  be  found. 

Together  with  the  true  names  of  the  Assyrian  kings,  the 
mounds  of  Mesopotamia  have  yielded  up  a mass  of  documents 
in  the  Assyrian  language,  from  which  it  is  possible  that  we  may 
one  day  acquire  as  full  a knowledge  of  its  structure  and  vocabu- 
lary as  we  possess  at  present  of  Greek  or  Latin.  These  docu- 
ments have  confirmed  the  previous  belief  that  the  tongue  is 
Semitic.  They  consist,  in  the  first  place,  of  long  inscriptions 
upon  the  slabs  of  stone  with  which 
the  walls  of  palaces  were  panelled, 
sometimes  occupying  the  stone  to  the 
exclusion  of  any  sculpture,  sometimes 
carried  across  the  dress  of  figures, 
always  carefully  cut  and  generally  in 
good  preservation.4  Xext  in  impor- 
tance to  these  memorials  are  the  hollow 
cylinders,  or  more  strictly  speaking, 
hexagonal  or  octagonal  prisms,  made 
in  extremely  fine  and  thin  terracotta,5 
which  the  Assyrian  kings  used  to  de- 
posit at  the  corners  of  temples,  inscribed 
with  an  account  of  their  chief  acts  and 
with  numerous  religious  invocations. 

These  cylinders  vary  from  a foot  and 
a half  to  three  feet  in  height,  and  are 
covered  closely  with  a small  writing, 
which  it  often  requires  a good  magnifying  glass  to  decipher.  A 
cylinder  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  (about  b.c.  1180)  contains  thirty  lines 
in  a space  of  six  inches,  or  five  lines  to  an  inch,  which  is  nearly 
as  close  as  the  type  of  the  present  volume.  This  degree  of  close- 
ness is  exceeded  on  a cylinder  of  Asshur-bani-pal’s  (about  b.c. 
660),  where  the  lines  are  six  to  the  inch,  or  as  near  together  as 
the  type  of  the  Edinburgh  Keview.  If  the  complexity  of  the 
Assyrian  characters  be  taken  into  account,  and  if  it  be  remem- 


Assyrian  Cylinder. 


4 Occasionally  the  slabs  have  been  purposely  defaced  and  rendered  illegible,  pro- 

bably by  kings  of  another  dynasty.  5 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery , p.  144. 


264 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY 


Chap.  Y. 


bered  that  the  whole  inscription  was  in  every  case  impressed  by 
the  hand,  this  minuteness  must  be  allowed  to  be  very  surprising. 
It  is  not  favourable  to  legibility ; and  the  patience  of  cuneiform 
scholars  has  been  severely  tried  by  a mode  of  writing  which 
sacrifices  everything  to  the  desire  of  crowding  the  greatest  pos- 
sible quantity  of  words  into  the  smallest  possible  space.  In  one 
respect,  however,  facility  of  reading  is  consulted,  for  the  inscrip- 
tions on  the  cylinders  are  not  carried  on  in  continuous  lines 


Assyrian  Seals  (after  Layard). 

round  all  the  sides,  but  are  written  in  columns,  each  column 
occupying  a side.  The  lines  are  thus  tolerably  short ; and  the 
whole  of  a sentence  is  brought  before  the  eye  at  once. 

Besides  slabs  and  cylinders,  the  written  memorials  of  Assyria 
comprise  inscribed  bulls  and  lions,  stone  obelisks,  clay  tablets, 
bricks,  and  engraved  seals.  The  seals  generally  resemble  those 
of  the  Chaldseans,  which  have  been  already  described ; 6 but  are 
somewhat  more  elaborate,  and  more  varied  in  their  character. 


6 See  above,  “ First  Monarchy,”  ch.  iv.  p.  G8,  and  ch.  v.  pp.  93-95. 


Chap.  V.  SLABS,  CYLINDERS,  SEALS,  TABLETS.  265 

They  do  not  very  often  exhibit  any  writing ; but  occasionally 
they  are  inscribed  with  the  name  of  their  owner,7  while  in 
a few  instances  they  show  an  inscription  of  some  length.  The 
clay  tablets  are  both  numerous  and  curious.  They  are  of 
various  sizes,  ranging  from  nine  inches  long  by  six  and  a 
half  wide,  to  an  inch  and  a half  long  by  an  inch  wide,  or 
even  less.8  Sometimes  they  are  entirely  covered  with  writing  ; 
while  sometimes  they  exhibit  on  a portion  of  their  surface  the 


* 


Assyrian  Clay  Tablets  (after  Layard). 


impressions  of  seals,  mythological  emblems,  and  the  like.  Some 
thousands  of  them  have  been  recovered ; and  they  are  found  to 
be  of  the  most  varied  character.  Many  are  historical,  still 
more  mythological ; some  are  linguistic,  some  geographic,  some 
again  astronomical.  It  is  anticipated  that,  when  they  are  deci- 
phered, we  shall  obtain  a complete  encyclopaedia  of  Assyrian 
science,  and  shall  be  able  by  this  means  to  trace  a large  portion 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  Greeks  to  an  Oriental  source.  Here  is 
a mine  still  very  little  worked,  from  which  patient  and  cautious 
investigators  may  one  day  extract  the  most  valuable  literary 


7 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  604,  note. 


8 Ibid.  p.  345. 


266 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


treasures.  The  stone  obelisks  are  but  few,  and  are  mostly  in  a 
fragmentary  condition.  One  alone  is  perfect — the  obelisk  in 
black  basalt,  discovered  by  Mr.  Layard  at  Nimrud,  which  has 
now  for  many  years  been  in  the  British  Museum.  This  monu- 
ment is  sculptured  on  each  of  its  four  sides,  in  part  with  writing 


Black  Obelisk,  from  Nimrud  (after  Birch). 


and  in  part  with  bas-reliefs.  It  is  about  seven  feet  high,  and 
two  feet  broad  at  the  base,  tapering  gently  towards  the  summit, 
which  is  crowned  with  three  low  steps,  or  gradines.  The  in- 
scription, which  occupies  the  upper  and  lower  portion  of  each 
side,  and  is  also  carried  along  the  spaces  between  the  bas-reliefs, 
consists  of  210  clearly  cut  lines,  and  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant documents  that  has  come  down  to  us.  It  gives  an 


Chap.  Y. 


WRITING  MATERIALS. 


267 


account  of  various  victories  gained  by  the  monarch  who  set  it 
up,  and  of  the  tribute  brought  him  by  several  princes.9  The 
inscribed  lions  and  bulls  are  numerous.  They  commonly  guard 
the  portals  of  palaces,  and  are  raised  in  a bold  relief  on  alabaster 
slabs.  The  writing  does  not  often  trench  upon  the  sculpture,  but 
covers  all  those  portions  of  the  slabs  which  are  not  occupied  by  the 
animal.  It  is  usually  a full  account  of  some  particular  campaign, 
which  was  thus  specially  commemorated,  giving  in  detail  what  is 
far  more  briefly  expressed  in  the  obelisk  and  slab  inscriptions.1 

This  review  of  the  various  kinds  of  documents  which  have 
been  discovered  in  the  ancient  cities  of  Assyria,  seems  to  show 
that  two  materials  were  principally  in  use  among  the  people 
for  literary  purposes,  namely,  stone  and  moist  clay.  The 
monarchs  used  the  former  most  commonly,  though  sometimes 
they  condescended  for  some  special  object  to  the  coarser  and 
more  fragile  material.  Private  persons  in  their  business  trans- 
actions, literary  and  scientific  men  in  their  compositions,  em- 
ployed the  latter,  on  which  it  was  possible  to  write  rapidly  with 
a triangular  instrument,  and  which  was  no  doubt  far  cheaper 
than  the  slabs  of  fine  stone,  which  were  preferred  for  the  royal 
inscriptions.  The  clay  documents,  when  wanted  for  instruction 
or  as  evidence,  were  carefully  baked ; and  thus  it  is  that  they 
have  come  down  to  us,  despite  their  fragility,  often  in  as  legible 
a condition,  with  the  letters  as  clear  and  sharp,  as  any  legend 
on  marble,  stone,  or  metal  that  we  possess  belonging  to  Greek, 
or  even  to  Roman  times.  The  best  clay  skilfully  baked,  is  a 
material  quite  as  enduring  as  either  stone  or  metal ; 2 resisting 
many  influences  better  than  either  of  those  materials. 

It  may  still  be  asked,  did  not  the  Assyrians  use  other  ma- 
terials also  ? Did  they  not  write  with  ink  of  some  kind  on 
paper,  or  leather,  or  parchment  ? It  is  certain  that  the  Egypt- 
ians had  invented  a kind  of  thick  paper  many  centuries  before 
the  Assyrian  power  arose  ; 3 and  it  is  further  certain  that  the 


9 See  the  translation  by  Dr.  Hincks 

in  the  Dublin  University  Magazine  for 

October,  1853. 

1  Journ.  of  Asiatic  Soc.,  vol.  xii.  p.  441. 


2 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery , vol.  i.  p.  2. 

3 Wilkinson,  in  the  author’s  Herodo- 
tus, vol.  ii.  p.  320,  § 33. 


268 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


later  Assyrian  kings  had  a good  deal  of  intercourse  with  Egypt. 
Under  such  circumstances,  can  we  suppose  that  they  did  not 
import  paper  from  that  country  ? Again,  the  Persians,  we  are 
told,  used  parchment  for  their  public  records.4  Are  not  the 
Assyrians,  a much  more  ingenious  people,  likely  to  have  done 
the  same,  at  any  rate  to  some  extent?  There  is  no  direct 
evidence  by  which  these  questions  can  be  determinately  an- 
swered. No  document  on  any  of  the  materials  suggested  has 
been  found.  No  ancient  author  states  that  the  Assyrians  or 
the  Babylonians  used  them.5  Had  it  not  been  for  one  piece  of 
indirect  evidence,  it  would  have  seemed  nearly  certain  that  they 
were  not  employed  by  the  Mesopotamian  races.  In  some  of  the 
royal  palaces,  however,  small  lumps  of  fine  clay  have  been 
found,  bearing  the  impressions  of  seals,  and  exhibiting  traces  of 
the  string  by  which  they  were  attached  to  documents,  while  the 
documents  themselves,  being  of  a different  material,  have  pe- 
rished.6 It  seems  probable  that  in  these  instances  some  sub- 
stance like  paper  or  parchment  was  used ; and  thus  we  are  led 
to  the  conclusion  that,  while  clay  was  the  most  common,  and 
stone  an  ordinary  writing  material  among  the  Assyrians,  some 
third  substance,  probably  Egyptian  paper,  was  also  known,  and 
was  used  occasionally,  though  somewhat  rarely,  for  public 
documents. 

We  may  now  proceed  to. consider  the  style  and  nature  of  the 
Assyrian  writing.  Derived  evidently  from  the  Chaldsean,  it  is 
far  less  archaic  in  type,  presenting  no  pictorial  representations 
of  objects,  and  but  a few  characters  where  the  pictorial  repre- 
sentation can  be  traced.  It  is  in  no  case  wholly  rectilinear ; and 


4 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  32.  As  Diodorus’  sole 
authority  here  is  the  untrustworthy 
Ctesias,  no  great  dependance  can  he 
placed  on  his  statement. 

5 This  is  not  a mere  negative  argu- 
ment, since  statements  of  the  nature  of 
the  material  used  do  occur,  and  accord 
with  the  monumental  facts.  Epigenes, 
for  instance,  spoke  of  the  Babylonians 
recording  their  astronomical  observa- 

tions upon  baked  tiles  (“  coctilibus  later- 
culis,”  Plin.  II.  N.  vii.  56),  and  the  his- 


torians of  Alexander  mentioned  a stone 
inscription  of  Sardanapalus  (Arr.  Exp. 
Al.  ii.  5 ; Strab.  xiv.  5,  § 9).  The  east- 
ern tradition  that  Seth  wrote  the  history 
and  wisdom  of  antediluvian  times  on 
burnt  and  unburnt  brick  (Layard,  Nin. 
and  Bab.  p.  347,  note),  has  a similar 
bearing. 

6  Layard,  p.  154;  Botta,  Letters  from 
Nineveh , p.  27.  For  a representation 
of  the  mark  of  the  string  see  above, 
p.  264. 


CHARACTERS. 


Chap.  V.  CHARACTERS.  269 

indeed  preserves  the  straight  line  only  in  a very  few  characters, 
for  “house,”  for  “gate,”  £| 


as  m 


for  “ temple,  altar,”  and 


for  “ fish,”  all  which  are 


111 


the  later  inscriptions  superseded  by  simpler  forms.  The  wedge 
may  thus  be  said  to  be  almost  the  sole  element  of  the  writing — 
the  wedge,  however,  under  a great  variety  of  forms — sometimes 

greatly  elongated,  as  thus  ^ , sometimes  contracted 

to  a triangle  >-  , sometimes  broadened  out  ^ , sometimes 

doubled  in  such  a way  as  to  form  an  arrow-head  & , and  placed 


in  every  direction — horizontal,  perpendicular,  and  diagonal. 

The  number  of  characters  is  very  great.  Sir  H.  Rawlinson, 
in  the  year  1851,  published  a list  of  246,  or  including  variants, 
366  characters,  as  occurring  in  the  inscriptions  known  to  him.7 
M.  Oppert,  in  1858,  gave  318  forms  as  those  “ most  in  use.” 8 Of 
course  it  is  at  once  evident  that  this  alphabet  cannot  represent 
elementary  sounds.  The  Assyrian  characters,  do,  in  fact,  cor- 
respond, not  to  letters,  according  to  our  notion  of  letters,  but  to 
syllables.  These  syllables  are  either  mere  vowel  sounds,  such 
as  we  represent  by  our  vowels  and  diphthongs,  or  such  sounds 
accompanied  by  one  or  two  consonants.  The  vowels  are  not 
very  numerous.  The  Assyrians  recognise  three  only  as  funda- 
mental— a,  i,  and  u.  Besides  these  they  have  the  diphthongs  ai , 
nearly  equivalent  to  e,  and  au,  nearly  equivalent  to  o.9  The 
vowels  i and  u have  also  the  powers,  respectively,  of  y and  v. 

The  consonant  sounds  recognised  in  the  language  are  sixteen 


7 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xiv. 

8 Expedition  scientifique  en  Mesopota- 

mie,  tom.  ii.  livre  i.  Appendice  ; Catalogue 
des  signes  les  plus  usites , pp.  107-120. 


9  The  vowels  must  he  sounded  as  in 
Italian,  A as  a in  “vast” — E as  a in 
“face” — I as  e in  “me” — O as  0 in 
“ host  ” — U as  m in  “ rude.” 


270 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  V. 


in  number.  They  are  the  labial,  guttural,  and  dental  tenues,  p, 
It,  t ; the  labial,  guttural,  and  dental  mediae,  b,  g,  d ; the  guttural 
and  dental  aspirates,  hh  (=  Heb.  n)  and  th  (=  Greek  6) ; the 
liquids  l,  m,1  n,  r ; and  the  sibilants  s,  sh  (=  Heb.  tp),  ts 
(=Heb.  v),  and  z.  The  system  here  is  nearly  that  of  the 

Hebrews,  from  which  it  differs  only  by  the  absence  of  the 
simple  aspirate  n,2  of  the  guttural  y,  and  of  the  aspirated  a 
( ph ).  It  has  no  sound  which  the  Hebrew  has  not. 

From  these  sounds,  combined  with  the  simple  vowels,  comes 
the  Assyrian  syllabarium,  to  which,  and  not  to  the  consonants 
themselves,  the  characters  were  assigned.  In  the  first  place, 
each  consonant  being  capable  of  two  combinations  with  each 
simple  vowel,  could  give  birth  naturally  to  six  simple  syllables, 
each  of  which  would  be  in  the  Assyrian  system  represented  by 
a character.  Six  characters,  for  instance,  entirely  different 
from  one  another,  represented  pa,  pi,  pu,  ap,  ip,  up  ; six  others, 
~ka,  hi,  hu,  ah,  ih,  uh ; six  others  again,  ta,  ti,  tu,  at,  it,  ut.  If 
this  rule  were  carried  out  in  every  case  the  sixteen  consonant 
sounds  would,  it  is  evident,  produce  96  characters.  The  actual 
number,  however,  formed  in  this  way,  is  only  75,  since  there  are 
seven  of  the  consonants  which  only  combine  with  the  vowels  in 
one  way.  Thus  we  have,  ba,  bi,  bn,  but  not  ab,  ib,  ub  ; ga,  gi, 
gu,  but  not  ag,  ig,  ug ; and  so  on.  The  sounds  regarded  as 
capable  of  only  one  combination  are  the  mediae , b,  g,  d ; the 
aspirates  hh  and  th;  and  the  sibilants  and  z. 

Such  is  the  first  and  simplest  syllabarium  : but  the  Assyrian 
system  does  not  stop  here.  It  proceeds  to  combine  with  each 
simple  vowel  sound  two  consonants,  one  preceding  the  vowel  and 
the  other  following  it.  If  this  plan  were  followed  out  to  the 
utmost  possible  extent,  the  result  would  be  an  addition  to  the 
syllabarium  of  768  sounds,  each  having  its  proper  character, 
which  would  raise  the  number  of  characters  to  between  eight 
and  nine  hundred  ! Fortunately  for  the  student,  phonetic  laws 


1 The  Assyrians  confounded  the  sounds 

of  m and  v,  as  the  Greeks  did  those  of  fj. 
and  /3.  (See  Buttmann’s  Lexiloyus,  p. 
84,  and  p.  189,  E.  T.) 


2 There  is  a character  representing 
the  soft  breathing  ’ ; but  none,  appa- 
rently, for  the  rough  breathing  *. 


Chap.  V. 


CHAEACTEES. 


271 


and  other  causes  have  intervened  to  check  this  extreme  luxu- 
riance ; and  the  combinations  of  this  kind  which  are  known  to 
exist,  instead  of  amounting  to  the  full  limit  of  768,  are  under 
150.  The  known  Assyrian  alphabet  is,  however,  in  this  wav 
raised  from  80,  or,  including  variants,  100,  to  between  240  and 
250  characters. 

Further,  there  is  another  kind  of  character,  quite  different 
from  these,  which  Orientalists  have  called  “ determinatives.” 
Certain  classes  of  words  have  a sign  prefixed  or  suffixed  to  them, 
most  commonly  the  former,  by  which  their  general  character  is 
indicated.  The  names  of  gods,  of  men,  of  cities,  of  tribes,  of 
wild  animals,  of  domestic  animals,  of  metals,  of  months,  of  the 
points  of  the  compass,  and  of  dignities,  are  thus  accompanied. 
The  sign  prefixed  or  suffixed  may  have  originally  represented  a 
word ; but  when  used  in  the  way  here  spoken  of,  it  is  believed 
that  it  was  not  sounded,  but  served  simply  to  indicate  to  the 
reader  the  sort  of  word  which  was  placed  before  him.  Thus  a 

single  perpendicular  wedge,  indicates  that  the  next  word 

will  be  the  name  of  a man ; such  a wedge,  preceded  by  two 

horizontal  ones,  ’ tells  118  exPec^  the  aPPe^afive  of 

a god  ; while  other  more  complicated  combinations  are  used  in 
the  remaining  instances.  There  are  about  ten  or  twelve  cha- 
racters of  this  description. 

Finally,  there  are  a certain  number  of  characters  which  have 
been  called  “ ideographs,”  or  “ monograms.”  Most  of  the  gods, 
and  various  cities  and  countries  are  represented  by  a group  of 
wedges,  which  is  thought  not  to  have  a real  phonetic  force,  but 
to  be  a conventional  sign  for  an  idea,  much  as  the  Arabic  nu- 
merals, 1,  2,  3,  &c.,  are  non -phonetic  signs  representing  the 
ideas,  one,  two,  three,  &c.  The  known  characters  of  this  de- 
scription are  between  twenty  and  thirty. 

The  known  Assyrian  characters  are  thus  brought  up  nearly  to 
three  hundred ! There  still  remain  a considerable  number 
which  are  either  wholly  unknown,  or  of  which  the  meaning  is 


272 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


knotvn,  while  the  phonetic  value  cannot  at  present  be  deter- 
mined. M.  Oppert’s  Catalogue  contains  fourteen  of  the  former 
and  fifty-nine  of  the  latter  class. 

It  has  been  already  observed,  that  the  monumental  evidence 
accords  with  the  traditional  belief  in  regard  to  the  character 
of  the  Assyrian  language,  which  is  unmistakably  Semitic.  Not 
only  does  the  vocabulary  present  constant  analogies  to  other 
Semitic  dialects,  but  the  phonetic  laws  and  the  grammatical 
forms  are  equally  of  this  type.  At  the  same  time  the  language 
has  peculiarities  of  its  own,  which  separate  it  from  its  kindred 
tongues,  and  constitute  it  a distinct  form  of  Semitic  speech,  not 
a mere  variety  of  any  known  form.  It  is  neither  Hebrew,  nor 
Arabic,  nor  Phoenician,  nor  Chaldee,  nor  Syriac,  but  a sister 
tongue  to  these,  having  some  analogies  with  all  of  them,  and 
others,  more  or  fewer,  with  each.  On  the  whole,  its  closest 
relationship  seems  to  be  with  the  Hebrew,  and  its  greatest  di- 
vergence from  the  Aramaic  or  Syriac,  with  which  it  was  yet, 
locally,  in  immediate  connection. 

To  attempt  anything  like  a full  illustration  of  these  state- 
ments in  the  present  place  would  be  manifestly  unfitting.  It 
would  be  to  quit  the  province  of  the  historian  and  archaeologist, 
in  order  to  enter  upon  that  of  the  comparative  philologer  or 
the  grammarian.  At  the  same  time  a certain  amount  of  illus- 
tration seems  necessary,  in  order  to  show  that  the  statements 
above  made  are  not  mere  theories,  but  have  a substantial  basis. 

The  Semitic  character  of  the  vocabulary  will  probably  be  felt 
to  be  sufficiently  established  by  the  following  lists : — 

NOUNS  SUBSTANTIVE. 

Abu,  “ a father.”  Compare  Heb.  ? '3K ; Arabic  abou. 

Ummu,  “ a mother.”  Comp.  Heb.  DK,  and  Arabic  um. 

AJchu,  “ a brother.”  Comp.  Heb.  TIN. 

Pal  or  bal,  “ a son.”  Comp.  Syriac  bar,  and  peril aps  Heb.  *2. 

llu,  “ God.”  Comp.  Heb.  ; Arabic  Allah. 

Sarru,  “ a king.”  Comp.  Heb.  *lb. 

Malik,  “ a prince.”  Comp.  Heb.  and  Arabic  malik. 

Bilu,  “ a lord.”  Comp.  Heb.  ^3. 

Nisu,  “ a man.”  Comp.  Heb.  “ a mortal,”  and  Chald.  “ women.” 


Chap.  V. 


THE  VOCABULARY  SEMITIC. 


273 


Dayan , “ a judge.”  Comp.  Heb.  from  fn,  judicare. 

Sumu,  “ a name.”  Comp.  Heb.  DSJ>. 

Sami,  “ heaven.”  Comp.  Heb.  D?DEJ>,  “ the  heavens.” 

Irtsit,  “ the  earth.”  Comp.  Heb. 

Sharnas,  “ the  sun.”  Comp.  Heb.  C^D!£\ 

Tsin,  “ the  moon.”  Comp.  Syriae  sin. 

Marrat , or  varrat,  “the  sea.”  Comp.  Arabic  bahr,  “a  lako”(?).  Or  may  the 
root  be  “ID,  “ bitter  ” ? Comp.  Lat.  mare,  a-marus. 

Nahar,  “ a river.”  Comp.  Heb.  “I  HI  and  Arabic  nahr. 

TT 

Yumu,  “ day.”  Comp.  Heb.  D1\ 

Damn,  “ the  world.”  Comp.  Heb.  DPiy. 

*Ir,  “ a city.”  Comp.  Heb.  Vy. 

Bit,  “ a house.”  Comp.  Heb.  JV3. 

Bab,  “ a gate.”  Comp.  Chald.  HIS,  and  Arabic  bab. 

Lisan,  “ a tongue,”  or  “ language.”  Comp.  Heb.  ; Chald.  \wbm 
Asar,  “ a place.”  Comp.  Chald.  “IHX. 

Mitu,  “ death.”  Comp.  Heb.  DID. 

Susu,  “ a horse.”  Comp.  Heb.  D-1D. 

ADJECTIVES. 

Bobu,  “ great.”  Comp.  Heb.  3“l ; whence  the  well-known  Rabbi  (NSH),  “ a great 
one,  a doctor.” 

Tabu , “ good.”  Comp.  Chald.  ID,  and  Heb.  11D. 

Bashu,  “ bad.”  Comp.  Heb.  £”2D,  “ a base  one,”  from  5^12,  “ to  be  ashamed.1’ 
Madut,  “ many.”  Comp.  Heb.  “IKD,  “ exceedingly.” 

Rult,  “ far,  wide.”  Comp.  Heb.  pilTl. 

NUMERALS. 

[The  forms  marked  with  an  asterisk  are  conjectural.] 

Ishtin,  “ one  ” (masc.) . Comp.  Heb.  '715^  in  *1K>y,">n£^yj  “ eleven.” 

IJchit, , “ one”  (fern.).  Comp.  Heb.  nn&C 
Slianai,  “two”  (masc.).  Comp.  Heb. 

Shalshat , “three”  (masc.).  Comp.  Heb.  n&b&. 

Shilash,  “ three  ” (fern.).  Comp.  Heb. 

Arbat,  “four”  (masc.).  Comp.  Heb.  ny2“]K. 

Arba,  “ four  ” (fern.).  Comp.  Heb.  y3"ltf . 

Khamshat , “ five  ” (masc.).  Comp.  Heb.  n^Dfl. 

Khamish , “ five  ” (fern.).  Comp.  Heb.  E^DIl. 

Shashat,  “ six  ” (masc.).  Comp.  Heb.  TMip. 

Shash,  “ six  ” (fern.).  Comp.  Heb.  E>65\ 

Shibit,  “ seven  ” (masc.).  Comp.  Heb. 

VOL.  I. 


T 


274 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


Shibi,  11  seven  ” (fern.).  Comp.  Heb. 

Shamnat*  “eight”  (masc.).  Comp. Heb.  E3DE\ 

Tishit*  “ nine  ” (masc.).  Comp.  Heb.  EV&7E. 

Tislii*  “ nine  ” (fern.).  Comp.  Heb.  y&^E. 

Isrit,  “ ten  ” (masc.).  Comp.  Heb.  EEt2>y. 

Isri,  “ten”  (fern.).  Comp.  Heb.  Efcyy. 

Israi,  “ twenty.”  Comp.  Heb.  D^'EE^y. 

Sliilashai,  “ thirty.”  Comp.  Heb. 

Irba’ai,  “ forty.”  Comp.  Heb.  Dvy3EX. 

Khamshai,  “fifty.”  Comp.  Heb.  D’WE. 

Shishai,  “ sixty.”  Comp.  Heb.  D W. 

Shibai,  “ seventy.”  Comp.  Heb.  D'TltA 
Shamnai,*  “ eighty.”  Comp.  Heb.  DDb*^. 

Tishai,  “ ninety.”  Comp.  Heb.  D'y^E. 

Mai,  or  Mi,  “ a hundred.”  Comp..  Heb.  EXD. 

PRONOUNS. 

[The  forms  marked  with  an  asterisk  are  conjectural.] 

Analiu,  “ I.”  Heb. 

“ thou  ” (masc.).  Heb.  EEX. 

Atti*  “ thou ” (fern.)*  Heb.  EX. 

Shu,  “ he.”  Heb.  WE. 

Shi,  “she.”  Heb.  X'E. 

Anahhni(?),  “we.”  Heb.  -Un^X,. 

Attun*  “ye”  (masc.).  Heb.  DEX. 

Attin,*  “ye”  (fern.).  Heb.  }EX. 

Shunut , or  Shun,  “they”  (masc.).  Heb.  EDE,  EE. 

Sliinat,  or  Shin,  “they”  (fern.).  Heb.  EJE?  }E. 

Ma,  “ who,  which.”  Heb.  ED. 

UUu,  “that.”  Heb.  E^X,  “these.” 

VERBS. 

Alah,  “ to  go.”  Heb.  ^?E 

Balihar,  “ to  collect.”  Comp.  Heb.  EES,  “ to  select.” 

Bana,  “to  create,  to  build.”  Heb.  ED3. 

Dana,  “ to  give,”  in  Niphal,  nadan.  Heb.  |E1 
Din,  “ to  judge.”  Heb.  j'E. 

Duh,  “ to  kill.”  Comp.  Heb;  ppE,  “ to  beat  small EH?  “ to  pound  or  bruise.” 
Chald.  EDE. 

’Ibir,  “ to  pass,  cross.”  Heb.  Ely. 

’ Ibush , “ to  make.”  Comp.  Chald.  Ely. 

’Irish,  “to  ask,  pray.”  Comp.  Heb.  E&HX,  “ a request,  desire.” 


Chap.  V. 


THE  GRAMMAR  ALSO  SEMITIC. 


275 


Natsar,  “ to  guard.”  Heb.  Y>*1 
Naza,  “ to  leap.”  Heb.  n'TJ. 

Nazal , “ to  flow,  sink,  descend.”  Heb. 

Palcad,  “ to  entrust.”  Heb.  HpS. 

Saga , “ to  grow,  become  great.”  Heb.  iOEJ>. 

Shakan , “ to  dwell.”  Heb.  p^. 

STiatar , “ to  write.”  Comp.  Chald.  N“)LD^,  “ a written  contract.” 

Tsabat , “ to  bold,  possess.”  Comp.  Heb.  j"Q¥,  “ a bundle  Arab,  tsabat,  “ to 
bold  tight;”  Cbald.  i“irQ¥,  “ tongs.” 

ADYERBS,  CONJUNCTIONS,  &c. 

Z7,  “ and.”  Heb.  -1  or  ). 

La , or  mZ,  “ not.”  Heb. 

Lapani,  11  before  tbe  face  of.”  Heb;  *05r^>N. 

Tsilli,  “ by  favour  of.”  Heb. 

’.ZZaZ,  “ except.”  Chald. 

Adi,  “ until.”  Heb.  Itf. 

Ki,  “ if.”  Heb.  p. 


It  remains  to  notice  briefly  some  of  the  chief  grammatical 
laws  and  forms.  There  is  one  remarkable  difference  between 
the  Assyrian  language  and  the  Hebrew,  namely,  that  the 
former  has  no  article.  In  this  it  resembles  the  Syriac,  which 
is  likewise  deficient  in  this  part  of  speech. 

Assyrian  nouns,  like  Hebrew  ones,  are  all  either  masculine  or 
feminine.  Feminine  nouns  end  ordinarily  in  -at  or  -it,  as 
Hebrew  ones  in  -eth,  - itli , -uth,  or  -ah.  There  is  a dual  number, 
as  in  Hebrew,  and  it  has  the  same  limited  use,  being  applied 
almost  exclusively  to  those  objects  which,  form  a pair.  The 
plural  masculine  is  commonly  formed  by  adding  -i  or  -ani  to 
the  singular — terminations  which  reeal  the  Hebrew  addition  of 
0?" ; but  sometimes  by  adding  -uti  or  -uti,  to  which  there  is  no 
analogy  in  Hebrew.3  The  plural  feminine  is  made  by  changing 
-it  into  -et,  and  -at  into  at,  or  (if  the  word  does  not  end  in  t),  by 
adding  -at.  Here  again  there  is  resemblance  to,  though  not 
identity  with,  the  Hebrew,  which  forms  the  feminine  plural  in 
-oth  (rri-). 


3 The  nearest  approach  to  an  analogy 
is  to  he  found  in  those  Hebrew  nouns 
which  adopt  the  feminine  termination 
for  their  plurals,  as  UN  “a  father,” 


“ fathers.”  But  in  Assyrian  the 
masculine  plural  termination  -ut  is  not 
identical  with  the  feminine,  which  is  -et 
or  -at. 

T 2 


2 y6 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Y. 


Assyrian,  like  Hebrew,  adjectives,  agree  in  gender  and  num- 
ber with  their  substantives.  They  form  the  feminine  singular  in 
-at,  the  plural  masculine  in  -i  and  -ut,  the  plural  feminine  in  -at 
and  -et. 

In  Assyrian,  as  in  all  other  Semitic  languages,  the  posses- 
sive pronouns  are  expressed  by  suffixes.  These  suffixes  are,  for 
the  first  person  singular,  -ya,  or  -iya  (Heb.  ';)  ; for  the  second 
person  singular  masculine,  -ha  (Heb.  ^-) ; for  the  second  person 
singular  feminine,  -hi  (Heb.  %) ; for  the  third  person  singular 
masculine,  -shu  (Heb.  -1-)  ; for  the  third  person  singular  feminine, 
-sha  (Heb.  n-)  ; for  the  first  person  plural,  -n  (Heb.  J]>) ; for  the 
second  person  plural  masculine,  -hun  (Heb.  ; for  the  second 
person  plural  feminine,  -kin  (Heb.  I?-) ; for  the  third  person 
plural  masculine,  shun  (Heb.  D-)  ; for  the  third  person  plural 
feminine,  shin  (Heb.  1;).  The  resemblance,  it  will  be  seen,  is  in 
most  cases  close,  though  in  only  one  is  there  complete  identity. 

Assyrian  verbs  have  five  principal,  and  four  secondary,  voices. 
Only  two  of  these — the  hal  and  the  niphal — are  exactly  iden- 
tical with  the  Hebrew.  The  jpael,  however,  corresponds  nearly 
to  the  Hebrew  j piel,  and  the  aphel  to  the  Hebrew  hiphil.  In 
addition  to  these  we  find  enumerated  the  shajphil,  the  iphteal, 
the  iphtaal,  the  istaphal,  and  the  itaphal.  Several  of  these  are 
well  known  forms  in  Chaldee. 

It  is  peculiar  to  Assyrian  to  have  no  distinctions  of  tense. 
The  same  form  of  the  verb  serves  for  the  present,  the  past,  and 
the  future.  The  only  distinctions  of  mood  are  an  imperative 
and  an  infinitive,  besides  the  indicative.  There  is  also,  in  each 
voice,  one  participle. 

The  verbs  are  conjugated  by  the  help  of  pronominal  suffixes 
and  prefixes,  chiefly  the  latter,  like  the  future  (present)  tense 
in  Hebrew.  The  suffixes  and  prefixes  are  nearly  identical  with 
those  used  in  Hebrew. 

For  further  particulars  on  this  interesting  subject  the  student 
is  referred  to  the  modest  but  excellent  work  of  M.  Oppert, 
entitled  ‘ Siemens  de  la  Grammaire  Assyrienne,’ 4 from  which 
the  greater  portion  of  the  above  remarks  are  taken. 


✓ 

* “ E lumens,  &c.”  par  M.  Jules  Oppert.  Paris,  Imprimerie  Imperiale,  18C0. 


Chap.  VI. 


ARCHITECTURE. 


2 77 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ARCHITECTURE  AND  OTHER  ARTS. 

“ Architect!  multarum  artium  solertes.” — Mos.  Chor.  {Be  Assyriis ) i.  15. 

The  luxury  and  magnificence  of  the  Assyrians,  and  the  ad- 
vanced condition  of  the  arts  among  them  which  such  words 
imply,  were  matters  familiar  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans ; who, 
however,  had  little  ocular  evidence  of  the  fact,  but  accepted  it 
upon  the  strength  of  a very  clear  and  uniform  tradition.  More 
fortunate  than  the  nations  of  classical  antiquity,  whose  compa- 
rative proximity  to  the  time  proved  no  advantage  to  them,  we 
possess  in  the  exhumed  remains  of  this  interesting  people  a 
mass  of  evidence  upon  the  point,  which,  although  in  many 
respects  sadly  incomplete,  still  enables  us  to  form  a judgment 
lor  ourselves  upon  the  subject,  and  to  believe — on  better  grounds, 
than  they  possessed — the  artistic  genius  and  multiform  in- 
genuity of  the  Assyrians.  As  architects,  as  designers,  as  sculp- 
tors, as  metallurgists,  as  engravers,  as  upholsterers,  as  workers 
in  ivory,  as  glassblowers,  as  embroiderers  of  dresses,  it  is  evident 
that  they’  equalled,  if  they  did  not  exceed,  all  other  Oriental 
nations.  It  is  the  object  of  the  present  chapter  to  give  some 
account  of  their  skill  in  these  various  respects.  Something  is 
now  known  of  them  all ; and  though  in  every  case  there  are 
points  still  involved  in  obscurity,  and  recourse  must  therefore 
be  had  upon  occasion  to  conjecture,  enough  appears  certainly 
made  out  to  justify  such  an  attempt  as  the  present,  and  to 
supply  a solid  groundwork  of  fact  valuable  in  itself,  even  if  it 
be  insufficient  to  sustain  in  addition  any  large  amount  of  hypo- 
thetical superstructure. 

The  architecture  of  the  Assyrians  will  naturally  engage  our 
attention  at  the  outset.  It  is  from  an  examination  of  their  edi- 
fices that  we  have  derived  almost  all  the  knowledge  which  we 


278 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YI. 


possess  of  their  progress  in  every  art;  and  it  is  further  as 
architects  that  they  always  enjoyed  a special  repute  among 
their  neighbours.  Hebrew  and  Armenian  united  with  Greek 
tradition  in  representing  the  Assyrians  as  notable  builders  at  a 
very  early  time.  When  Asshur  <c  went  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Shinar,”  it  was  to  build  cities,  one  of  which  is  expressly  called 
“ a great  city.”  1 When  the  Armenians  had  to  give  an  account 
of  the  palaces  and  other  vast  structures  in  their  country,  they 
ascribed  their  erection  to  the  Assyrians.2  Similarly,  when  the 
Greeks  sought  to  trace  the  civilisation  of  Asia  to  its  source, 


10  20  ai)  40  50  feet. 

Terrace-wall  at  Khorsabad. 


they  carried  it  back  to  Ninus  and  Semiramis,  whom  they  made 
the  founders,  respectively,  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon,3  the  two 
chief  cities  of  the  early  world. 

Among  the  architectural  works  of  the  Assyrians,  the  first 
place  is  challenged  by  their  palaces.  Less  religious,  or  more 
servile,  than  the  Egyptians  and  the  Greeks,  they  make  their 
temples  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  dwellings  of  their 
kings,  to  which  indeed  the  temple  is  most  commonly  a sort  of 
appendage.  In  the  palace  their  art  culminates — there  every 
effort  is  made,  every  ornament  lavished.  If  the  architecture  of 


1 Gen.  X.  12. 


2 Mos.  Choren.  i.  15. 


3 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  3 and  5. 


Chap.  VI. 


PALACE  PLATFORMS, 


279 


the  Assyrian  palaces  be  fully  considered,  very  little  need  be  said 
on  the  subject  of  their  other  buildings. 

The  Assyrian  palace  stood  uniformly  on  an  artificial  platform. 
Commonly  this  platform  was  composed  of  sun-dried  bricks  in 
regular  layers ; but  occasionally  the  material  used  was  merely 
earth  or  rubbish,  excepting  towards  the  exposed  parts— the 
sides  and  the  surface — which  were  always  either  of  brick  or  of 
stone.  In  most  cases  the  sides  were  protected  by  massive  stone 


Pavement-slab,  from  the  Northern  Palace,  Koyunjik. 


masonry,  carried  perpendicularly  from  the  natural  ground  to  a 
height  somewhat  exceeding  that  of  the  platform,  and  either  made 
plain  at  the  top  or  else  crowned  with  stone  battlements  cut  into 
gradines.  The  pavement  consisted  in  part  of  stone  slabs,  in  part 
of  kiln-dried  bricks  of  a large  size,  often  as  much  as  two  feet 
square.  The  stone  slabs  were  sometimes  inscribed,  sometimes 
ornamented  with  an  elegant  pattern.  (See  above.)  Occasionally 
the  terrace  was  divided  into  portions  at  different  elevations,  which 


28o 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YI. 


were  connected  by  staircases  or  inclined  planes.  The  terrace 
communicated  in  the  same  way  with  the  level  ground  at  its  base, 
being  (as  is  probable)  sometimes  ascended  in  a single  place, 
sometimes  in  several.  These  ascents  were  always  on  the  side 
where  the  palace  adjoined  upon  the  neighbouring  town,  and  were 
thus  protected  from  hostile  attack  by  the  town-walls.  "Where  the 
palace  abutted  upon  the  walls  or  projected  beyond  them — and 
the  palace  was  always  placed  at  the  edge  of  a town,  for  the  double 
advantage,  probably,  of  a clear  view  and  of  fresh  air — the  plat- 
form rose  perpendicularly  or  nearly  so  ; and  generally  a water 
protection,  a river,  a moat,  or  a broad  lake,  lay  at  its  base,  thus 
rendering  attack,  except  on  the  city  side,  almost  impossible. 

The  platform  appears  to  have  been,  in  general  shape,  a rect- 
angle, or  where  it  had  different 
elevations,  to  have  been  com- 
posed of  rectangles.  The  mound 
of  Khorsabad,  which  is  of  this 
latter  character,  resembles  a 
gigantic  T. 

It  must  not  be  supposed, 
however,  that  the  rectangle  wras 


Lower  Terrace. 

Upper 

Terrace. 

always  exact.  Sometimes  its  outline  was  broken  by  angular 
projections  and  indentations,  as  in  the  annexed  plan  (p.  281),' 4 
where  the  shaded  parts  represent  actual  discoveries.  Sometimes 
it  grew  to  be  irregular,  by  the  addition  of  fresh  portions,  as  new 
kings  arose  who  determined  on  fresh  erections.  This  is  the  case 
at  Nimrud,  where  the  platform  broadens  towards  its  lower  or 
southern  end,5  and  still  more  at  Koyunjik  and  Nebbi  Yunus,6 
where  the  rectangular  idea  has  been  so  overlaid  as  to  have 
almost  wholly  disappeared.  Palaces  were  commonly  placed 
near  one  edge  of  the  mound — more  especially  near  the  river 
edge — probably  for  the  better  enjoyment  of  the  prospect,  and 
of  the  cool  air  over  the  water. 


4  The  plan  is  borrowed,  by  permission, 
from  Mr.  Eergusson’s  excellent  work, 

The  Palaces  of  Nineveh  and  Persepolis 
Restored.  Mr.  Fergusson  remarks  that 

this  feature  of  alternate  projection  and 


indentation  is  found  also  in  the  Perse- 
politan  platform  (see  p.  239). 

5 See  the  plan,  supra,  p.  200. 

6 See  above,  p.  253. 


Chap.  YL 


COURTS  AND  HALLS. 


281 


The  palace  itself  was  composed  of  three  main  elements, 
courts,  grand  halls,  and  small  private  apartments.  A palace  has 
usually  from  two  to  four  courts,  which  are  either  square  or 
oblong,  and  vary  in  size  according  to  the  general  scale  of  the 
building.  In  the  north-west  palace  at  Nimrud,  the  most  ancient 


of  the  edifices  yet  explored,  one  court  only  has  been  found,  the 
dimensions  of  which  are  120  feet  by  90.  At  Khorsabad,  the 
palace  of  Sargon  has  four  courts.  Three  of  them  are  nearly 
square,  the  largest  of  these  measuring  180  feet  each  way,  and  the 
smallest  about  120  feet ; the  fourth  is  oblong,  and  must  have  been 
at. least  250  feet  long  and  150  feet  wide.  The  palace  of  Senna- 


282 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


cherib  at  Koyunjik,  a much  larger  edifice  than  the  palace  of 
Sargon,  has  also  three  courts,  which  are  respectively  93  feet  by 
84,  124  feet  by  90,  and  154  feet  by  125.  Esar-haddon’s  palace 
at  Nimrud  has  a court  220  feet  long  and  100  wide.7  These 
courts  were  all  paved  either  with  baked  bricks  of  large  size,  or 
with  stone  slabs,  which  were  frequently  patterned.8  Sometimes 
the  courts  were  surrounded  with  buildings  ; sometimes  they 
abutted  upon  the  edge  of  the  platform : in  this  latter  case 
they  were  protected  by  a stone  parapet,  which  (at  least  in 
places)  was  six  feet  high. 

The  grand  halls  of  the  Assyrian  palaces  constitute  their  most 
remarkable  feature.  Each  palace  has  commonly  several.  They 
are  apartments  narrow  for  their  length,  measuring  from  three 
to  five  times  their  own  width,  and  thus  having  always  some- 
what the  appearance  of  galleries.  The  scale  upon  which  they 
are  built  is,  commonly,  magnificent.  In  the  palace  of  Asshur- 
izir-pal  at  Nimrud,  the  earliest  of  the  discovered  edifices,  the 
great  hall  was  160  feet  long  by  nearly  40  broad.  In  Sargon’s 
palace  at  Khorsabad  the  size  of  no  single  room  was  so  great ; 
but  the  number  of  halls  was  remarkable,  there  being  no  fewer 
than  five  of  nearly  equal  dimensions.  The  largest  was  116  feet 
long,  and  33  wide ; the  smallest  87  feet  long,  and  25  wide. 
The  palace  of  Sennacherib  at  Koyunjik  contained  the  most 
spacious  apartment  yet  exhumed.  It  was  immediately  inside 
the  great  portal,  and  extended  in  length  180  feet,  with  a uniform 
width  of  40  feet.  In  one  instance  only,  so  far  as  appears,  was 
an  attempt  made  to  exceed  this  width.  In  the  palace  of  Esar- 
haddon,  the  son  of  Sennacherib,  a hall  was  designed,  intended 
to  surpass  all  former  ones.  Its  length  was  to  be  1 65  feet,  and 
its  width  62 ; consequently  it  would  have  been  nearly  one-third 
larger  than  the  great  hall  of  Sennacherib,  its  area  exceeding 
10,000  square  feet.  But  the  builder  who  had  designed  this 
grand  structure  appears  to  have  been  unable  to  overcome  the 


7 Mr.  Layard  calls  this  court  a “ hall  ” 

( Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  654)  ; but  no 
one  can  compare  his  plan  of  Esar-had- 
don’s Nimrud  palace  (No.  3,  opp.  p.  655) 
with  M.  Botta’s  plans  of  Khorsabad,  and 


his  own  plans  of  Koyunjik,  without  see- 
ing at  once  that  the  great  space  is  really 
an  inner  court. 

8 See  the  woodcut  on  p.  279. 


Chap.  VI. 


CHAMBERS. 


283 


difficulty  of  carrying  a roof  over  so  vast  an  expanse.  He  was 
therefore  obliged  to  divide  his  hall  by  a wall  down  the  middle ; 
which,  though  he  broke  it  in  an  unusual  way  into  portions,  and 
kept  it  at  some  distance  from  both  ends  of  the  apartment,  still 
had  the  actual  effect  of  subdividing  his  grand  room  into  four 
apartments  of  only  moderate  size.  The  halls  were  paved  with 
sun-burnt  brick.  They  were  ornamented  throughout  by  the 
elaborate  sculptures,  now  so  familiar  to  us,  carried  generally  in 
a single,  but  sometimes  in  a double  line,  round  the  four  walls 
of  the  apartment.  The  sculptured  slabs  rested  on  the  ground, 
and  clothed  the  walls  to  the  height  of 
10  or  12  feet.  Above,  for  a space 
which  we  cannot  positively  fix,  but  which 
was  certainly  not  less  than  four  or  five 
feet,9  the  crude  brick  wall  was  continued, 
faced  here  with  burnt  brick  enamelled, 
on  the  side  towards  the  apartment, 
pleasingly  and  sometimes  even  bril- 
liantly coloured.1  The  whole  height  of 
the  walls  was  probably  from  1 5 to  20  feet. 

By  the  side  of  the  halls,  or  at  their 
ends,  and  opening  into  them,  or  some- 
times collected  together  into  groups,  with 

no  hall  near,  are  the  smaller  chambers  Hall  of  Esar-haddon’s  Palace, 

JNimrud. 

of  which  mention  has  been  already  made.  (After  Fergusson.) 
These  chambers  are  in  every  case  rect- 
angular : in  their  proportions  they  vary  from  squares  to  narrow 
oblongs,  90  feet  by  17,  85  by  16,  80  by  15,  and  the  like.  When 
they  are  square,  the  side  is  never  more  than  about  25  feet.  They 
are  often  as  richly  decorated  as  the  halls,  but  sometimes  are 
merely  faced  with  plain  slabs  or  plastered;  while  occasionally 
they  have  no  facing  at  all,  but  exhibit  throughout  the  crude 
brick.  This,  however,  is  unusual. 

The  number  of  ‘chambers  in  a palace  is  very  large.  In 


9 As  much  as  four  feet  of  the  wall  has 
sometimes  been  found  standing  (Fer- 
gusson’s  Palaces , p.  267). 


1 See  the  specimens  of  enamelled 
bricks  in  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments  of 
Nineveh , 1st  Series,  Plates  84  to  86. 


284 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


Sennacherib’s  palace  at  Koyunjik,  where  great  part  of  the  build- 
ing remains  still  unexplored,  the  excavated  chambers  amount 
to  sixty-eight — all,  be  it  remembered,  upon  the  ground  floor. 
The  space  covered  by  them  and  by  their  walls  exceeds  40,000 
square  yards.  As  Mr.  Eergusson  observes, “ the  imperial  palace 
of  Sennacherib  is,  of  all  the  buildings  of  antiquity,  surpassed  in 
magnitude  only  by  the  great  palace-temple  of  Karnak ; and 
when  we  consider  the  vastness  of  the  mound  on  which  it  was 
raised,  and  the  richness  of  the  ornaments  with  which  it  was 
adorned,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  it  was  not  as  great,  or  at 
least  as  expensive,  a work  as  the  great  palace-temple  at  Thebes.” 2 
Elsewhere  the  excavated  apartments  are  less  numerous  ; but  in 
no  case  is  it  probable  that  a palace  contained  on  its  ground  floor 
fewer  than  forty  or  fifty  chambers. 

The  most  striking  peculiarity  which  the  ground-plans  of  the 
palaces  disclose  is  the  uniform  adoption  throughout  of  straight 
and  parallel  lines.  No  plan  exhibits  a curve  of  any  kind,  or 
any  angle  but  a right  angle.  Courts,  chambers,  and  halls,  are, 
in  most  cases,  exact  rectangles ; and  even  where  any  variety 
occurs,  it  is  only  by  the  introduction  of  squared  recesses  or  pro- 
jections, which  are  moreover  shallow  and  infrequent.  When  a 
palace  has  its  own  special  platform,  the  lines  of  the  building 
are  further  exactly  parallel  with  those  of  the  mound  on  which 
it  is  placed ; and  the  parallelism  extends  to  any  other  detached 
buildings  that  there  may  be  anywhere  upon  the  platform.3 
When  a mound  is  occupied  by  more  palaces  than  one,  sometimes 
this  law  still  obtains,  as  at  Nimrud,4  where  it  seems  to  embrace 
at  any  rate  the  greater  number  of  the  palaces ; sometimes,  as 
at  Koyunjik,5  the  rule  ceases  to  be  observed,  and  the  ground- 
plan  of  each  palace  seems  formed  separately  and  independently, 
with  no  reference  to  any  neighbouring  edifice. 


2 Handbook  of  Architecture , vol.  d. 
p.  176. 

3 See  the  plan  of  Sargon’s  palace  at 
Khorsabad,  supra,  p.  281. 

4 See  the  plan  of  the  Nimrud  platform 
in  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Babylon , opp. 
p.  655.  According  to  it,  all  the  palaces 

on  the  platform  would  have  their  walls 


parallel  to  one  another  and  to  the  sides 
of  the  platform ; but  Captain  Jones’s 
survey  shows  that  the  platform  itself  is 
irregular,  so  that  Mr.  Layard’s  repre- 
sentation appears  to  be  inexact. 

5  The  wralls  of  the  palace  excavated 
by  Mr.  Loftus  are  not  parallel  with  those 
of  the  edifice  exhumed  by  Mr.  Layard. 


Chap.  YI. 


IRREGULARITY  — WANT  OF  PASSAGES. 


285 


Apart  from  this  feature,  the  buildings  do  not  affect  much 
regularity.6  In  courts  and  fapades,  to  a certain  extent,  there  is 
correspondence;  but  in  the  internal  arrangements,  regularity 
is  decidedly  the  exception.  The  two  sides  of  an  edifice  never 
correspond ; room  never  answers  to  room  ; doorways  are  rarely 
in  the  middle  of  walls  ; where  a room  has  several  doorways,  they 
are  seldom  opposite  to  one  another,  or  in  situations  at  all  cor- 
responding. 

There  is  a great  awkwardness  in  the  communications.  Very 
few  corridors  or  passages  exist  in  any  of  the  buildings.  Groups 
of  rooms,  often  amounting  to  ten  or  twelve,  open  into  one  an- 
other ; and  we  find  comparatively  few  rooms  to  which  there  is 
any  access,  except  through  some  other  room.  Again,  whole 
sets  of  apartments  are  sometimes  found,  between  which  and  the 
rest  of  the  palace  all  communication  is  cut  off  by  thick  walls. 
Another  peculiarity  in  the  internal  arrangements  is  the  number 
of  doorways  in  the  larger  apartments,  and  their  apparently 
needless  multiplication.  We  constantly  find  two  or  even  three 
doorways  leading  from  a court  into  a hall,  or  from  one  hall  into 
a second.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  could  be  gained  by  such 
an  arrangement. 

The  disposition  of  the  various  parts  of  a palace  will  probably 
be  better  apprehended  from  an  exact  account  of  a single  build- 
ing than  from  any  further  general  statements.  For  this  pur- 
pose it  is  necessary  to  select  a specimen  from  among  the  various 
edifices  that  have  been  disentombed  by  the  labours  of  recent 
excavators.  The  specimen  should  be,  if  possible,  complete  ; 
it  should  have  been  accurately  surveyed,  and  the  survey  should 
have  been  scientifically  recorded ; it  should  further  stand  single 
and  separate,  that  there  may  be  no  danger  of  confusion  between 
its  remains  and  those  of  adjacent  edifices.  These  requirements, 
though  nowhere  exactly  met,  are  very  nearly  met  by  the  build- 
ing at  Khorsabad,  which  stands  on  a mound  of  its  own,  unmixed 
with  other  edifices,  has  been  most  carefully  examined,  and  most 
excellently  represented  and  described,  and  which,  though  not 


6 Compare  the  observations  of  M.  Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  v.  p.  64. 


286 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YT. 


completely  excavated,  Las  been  excavated  with  a nearer 
approach  to  completeness  than  any  other  edifice  in  Assyria. 
The  Khorsabad  building — which  is  believed  to  be  a palace 
built  by  Sargon,  the  son  of  Sennacherib — will  therefore  be 
selected  for  minute  description  in  this  place,  as  the  palace  most 
favourably  circumstanced,  and  the  one  of  which  we  have,  on 
the  whole,  the  most  complete  and  exact  knowledge.7 

The  situation  of  the  town,  whereof  the  palace  of  Sargon 
formed  a part,  has  been  already  described  in  a former  part  of 
this  volume.8  The*  shape,  it  has  been  noted,  was  square,  the 
angles  facing  the  four  cardinal  points..  Almost  exactly  in  the 
centre  of  the  north-west  wall  occurs  the  palace  platform,  a 
huge  mass  of  crude  brick,  from  20  to  30  feet  high,  shaped  like 
a T,  the  upper  limb  lying  within  the  city  walls,  and  the  lower 
limb  (which  is  at  a higher  elevation)  projecting  beyond  the  line 
of  the  walls  to  a distance  of  at  least  500  feet.  At  present  there 
is  a considerable  space  between  the  ends  of  the  wall  and  the 
palace  mound;9  but  anciently  it  is  probable  that  they  either 
abutted  on  the  mound,  or  were  separated  from  it  merely  by  gate- 
ways. The  mound,  or  at  any  rate  the  part  of  it  which  projected 
beyond  the  walls,  was  faced  with  hewn  stone,10  carried  perpen- 
dicularly from  the  plain  to  the  top  of  the  platform  and  even 
beyond,  so  as  to  form  a parapet  protecting  the  edge  of  the 
platform.  On  the  more  elevated  portion  of  the  mound — that 
which  projected  beyond  the  walls — stood  the  palace,  consisting 
of  three  groups  of  buildings,  the  principal  group  lying  towards 
the  mound’s  northern  angle.  On  the  lower  portion  of  the  plat- 
form were  several  detached  buildings,  the  most  remarkable  being 
a huge  gateway,  or  propylseum,  through  which  the  entrance 
lay  to  the  palace  from  the  city.  Beyond  and  below  this,  on  the 
level  of  the  city,  the  first  or  outer  portals  were  placed,1  giving 
entrance  to  a court  in  front  of  the  lower  terrace. 


7 See  Fergusson’s  Palaces , pp.  234,  235. 

8 Supra,  pp.  203,  204. 

9 The  Khosr-Su,  which  runs  on  this 

side  of  the  Khorsabad  ruins,  often  over- 
flows its  banks,  and  pours  its  waters 
against  the  palace  mound.  The  gaps 
north  and  south  of  the  mound  may  have 


been  caused  by  its  violence. 

10  See  the  woodcut,  supra,  p.  278. 

1 These  portals  were  discovered  by  M. 
Place,  M.  Botta’s  successor  at  Mosul.  I 
cannot  find  that  any  representations  of 
them  have  been  published. 


Chaf.  VI. 


KHORSABAD  PALACE. 


287 


Plan  of  the  Palace  of  Sargon,  Khorsabad  (after  Fergusson). 


288 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Ciiap.  VI. 


A visitor  approach- 
ing the  palace  had  in 
the  first  place  to  pass 
through  these  portals. 
They  were  ornamented 
with  colossal  human- 
headed bulls  on  either 
side,  and  probably 
spanned  by  an  arch 
above,  the  archivolte 
being  covered  with 
enamelled  bricks  dis- 
posed in  a pattern. 
Received  within  the 
portals,  the  visitor 
found  himself  in  front 
of  a long  wall  of  solid 
stone  masonry,  the 
revetement  of  the 
lower  terrace,  which 
rose  from  the  outer 
court  to  a height  of 
at  least  twenty  feet. 
Either  an  inclined  way 
or  a flight  of  steps — 
probably  the  latter— 
must  have  led  up  from 
the  outer  court  to  this 
terrace.  Here  the 
visitor  found  another 
portal  or  propyleeum 
of  a magnificent  cha- 
racter. Midway  in 
the  south-east  side  of 
the  lower  terrace,  and 
about  fifty  feet  from 
its  edge,  stood  this 


Chap.  VI. 


THE  GREAT  PORTAL. 


289 


grand  structure,  a gateway  ninety  feet  in  width,  and  at  least 
twenty-five  in  depth,  having  on  each  side  three  winged  bulls  of 
gigantic  size,  two  of  them  fifteen  feet  high,  and  the  third  nine- 
teen feet.  Between  the  two  smaller  bulls,  which  stood  back  to 
back,  presenting  their  sides  to  the  spectator,  was  a colossal 
figure  strangling  a lion — the  Assyrian  Hercules,  according  to 
most  writers.  The  larger  bulls  stood  at  right  angles  to  these 
figures,  withdrawn  within  the  portal,  and  facing  the  spectator. 
The  space  between  the  bulls,  which  is  nearly  twenty  feet,  was 
(it  is  probable)  arched  over.2  Perhaps  the  archway  led  into  a 
chamber,  beyond  which  was  a second  archway  and  an  inner 
portal,  as  marked  in  Mr.  Fergusson’s  plan ; but  this  is  at  pre- 
sent uncertain.3 

Besides  the  great  portal,  the  only  buildings  as  yet  discovered 
on  this  lower  platform,  are  a suite  of  not  very  extensive  apart- 
ments. They  are  remarkable  for  their  ornamentation.  The 
walls  are  neither  lined  with  slabs,  nor  yet  (as  is  sometimes  the 
case)  painted ; but  the  plaster  of  which  they  are  composed  is 
formed  into  sets  of  half  pillars  or  reedings,  separated  from  one 
another  by  pilasters  with  square  sunk  panels.4  The  former 
kind  of  ornamentation  is  found  also  in  Lower  Chaldsea,  and  has 
been  already  represented ; 5 the  latter  is  peculiar  to  this  build- 
ing. It  is  suggested  that  these  apartments  formed  the  quarters 
of  the  soldiers  who  kept  watch  over  the  royal  residence.6 

About  300  feet  from  the  outer  edge  of  the  lower  terrace,  the 
upper  terrace  seems  to  have  commenced.  It  was  raised  pro- 
bably about  ten  feet  above  the  lower  one.  The  mode  of  access 
has  not  been  discovered,  but  is  presumed  to  have  been  by  a 
flight  of  steps,  not  directly  opposite  the  propylseum,  but  some- 
what to  the  right,  whereby  entrance  was  given  to  the  great 
court,  into  which  opened  the  main  gateways  of  the  palace  itself. 
The  court  was  probably  250  feet  long  by  160  or  170  feet  wide. 


2 The  widest  Assyrian  arch  actually 
discovered  is  carried  across  a space  of 
about  15  feet  (infra,  p.  301). 

3 Mr.  Fergusson  argues  for  the  exist- 

ence of  a chamber  and  a second  gateway, 

from  the  analogy  of  the  Persepolitan 

VOL.  I, 


ruins  ( Palaces  of  Nineveh , p.  246)  ; but 
this  analogy  cannot  be  depended  on. 

4 Fergusson,  Handbook  of  Architecture, 
vol.  i.  p.  172. 

5 Supra,  p.  83. 

6 Fergusson,  Handbook,  1.  s.  c. 

U 


290 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  visitor,  on  mounting  the  steps,  perhaps  passed  through 
another  propylseum  ( b in  the  plan)  ; after  which,  if  his  business 
was  with  the  monarch,  he  crossed  the  full  length  of  the  court, 
leaving  a magnificent  triple  entrance,  which  is  thought  to  have 
led  to  the  king’s  hareem,  on  his  left,  and  making  his  way  to  the 
public  gate  of  the  palace,  which  fronted  him  when  he  mounted 
the  steps.  The  hareem  portal,  which  he  passed,  resembled  in 
the  main  the  great  propylseum  of  the  lower  platform ; but, 
being  triple,  it  was  still  more  magnificent,  exhibiting  two  other 
entrances  on  either  side  of  the  main  one,  guarded  each  by  a 
siugle  pair  of  winged  bulls  of  the  smaller  size.  Along  the 
hareem  wall,  from  the  gateway  to  the  angle  of  the  court,  was  a 
row  of  sculptured  bas-reliefs,  ten  feet  in  height,  representing 


King  and  attendants,  Khorsabad. 


the  monarch  with  his  attendant  guards  and  officers.  The  fapade 
occupying  the  end  of  the  court  was  of  inferior  grandeur.  Sculp- 
tures similar  to  those  along  the  hareem  wall  adorned  it ; but  its 
centre  showed  only  a single  gateway,  guarded  by  one  pair  of 
the  larger  bulls,  fronting  the  spectator,  and  standing  each  in  a 
sort  of  recess,  the  character  of  which  will  be  best  understood  by 
the  ground-plan  on  the  next  page.  Just  inside  the  bulls  was 
the  great  door  of  the  palace,  a single  door  made  of  wood — 
apparently  of  mulberry7 — opening  inwards,  and  fastened  on  the 
inside  by  a bolt  at  bottom,  and  also  by  an  enormous  lock.  This 
door  gave  entrance  into  a passage,  70  feet  long  and  about  10 
feet  wide,  paved  with  large  slabs  of  stone,  and  adorned  on  either 
side  with  inscriptions  and  with  a double  row  of  sculptures,  repre- 


7 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  v.  p.  48. 


Chap.  VI. 


THE  FIEST  AND  SECOND  COURTS. 


29I 


senting  the  arrival  of  tribute  and  gifts  for  the  monarch.  All 
the  figures  here  faced  one  way,  towards  the  inner  palace  court, 
into  which  the  passage  led.  M.  Botta  believes  that  the  passage 
was  uncovered;8  while  Mr.  Fergusson**  imagines  that  it  was 
vaulted  throughout.  It  must  in  any  case  have  been  lighted 
from  above;  for  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  read  the 
inscriptions,  or  even  to  see  the  sculptures,  merely  by  the  light 
admitted  at  the  two  ends. 

From  the  passage  in  question — one  of  the  few  in  the  edifice 
— no  doorway  opened  out  either  on  the  right  hand  or  on  the 
left.  The  visitor  necessarily  proceeded  along  its  whole  extent, 
as  he  saw  the  figures  proceeding  in  the  sculptures,  and,  passing 
through  a second  portal,  found  himself  in  the  great  inner  court 


1.1  N E OF  FA  g A D E 


of  the  palace,  a square  of  about  150  or  160  feet,  enclosed  on 
two  sides — the  south-east  and  the  south-west — by  buildings,  on 
the  other  two  sides  reachiug  to  the  edge  of  the  terrace,  which 
here  gave  upon  the  open  country.  The  buildings  on  the  south- 
east side,  looking  towards  the  north-west,  and  adjoining  the 
gateway  by  which  he  had  entered,  were  of  comparatively  minor 
importance.  They  consisted  of  a few  chambers  suitable  for 
officers  of  the  court,  and  were  approached  from  the  court  by 
two  doorways,  one  on  either  side  of  the  passage  through  which 
he  had  come.  To  his  left,  looking  towards  the  north-east,  were 
the  great  state  apartments,  the  principal  part  of  the  palace, 
forming  a fapade,  of  which  some  idea  may  perhaps  be  formed 
from  the  representation  on  page  293.  The  upper  part  of  this 

8 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  v.  p.  69.  9 Palaces  of  Nineveh , p.  259. 

u 2 


292 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YI. 


representation  is  indeed  purely  conjectural ; and  when  we  come 
to  consider  the  mode  in  which  the  Assyrian  palaces  were  roofed 
and  lighted,  we  shall  perhaps  find  reason  to  regard  it  as  not  very 
near  the  truth  ; but  the  lower  part,  up  to  the  top  of  the  sculp- 
tures, the  court  itself,  and  the  various  accessaries,  are  correctly 
given,  and  furnish  the  only  perspective  view  of  this  part  of  the 
palace  which  has  been  as  yet  published. 

The  great  state  apartments  consisted  of  a suite  of  ten  rooms. 
Five  of  these  were  halls  of  large  dimensions ; one  was  a long 
and  somewhat  narrow  chamber,  and  the  remaining  four  were 
square  or  slightly  oblong  apartments  of  minor  consequence. 
All  of  them  were  lined  throughout  with  sculptures.  The  most 
important  seem  to  have  been  three  halls  en  suite  (YIII.  Y.  and 

II.  in  the  plan),  which  “ are,  both 
in  their  external  and  internal 
decorations,  by  far  the  most  splen- 
did of  the  whole  palace.”1  The 
first  lay  just  within  the  north-east 
facade,  and  ran  parallel  to  it.  It 
gj  was  entered  by  three  doorways, 
the  central  one  ornamented  exter- 

King  punishing  prisoners,  Khorsabad.  . , i i n n. 

nally  with  two  colossal  bulls  of 
the  largest  size,  one  on  either  side  within  the  entrance,  and  with 
two  pairs  of  smaller  bulls,  back  to  back,  on  the  projecting  pylons ; 
the  side  ones  guarded  by  winged  genii,  human  or  hawk-headed. 
The  length  of  the  chamber  was  116  feet  6 inches,  and  its  breadth 
33  feet.  Its  sculptures  represented  the  monarch  receiving 
prisoners,  and  either  personally  or  by  deputy  punishing  them.2 
We  may  call  it,  for  distinction’s  sake,  “ the  Hall  of  Punishment.” 
The  second  hall  (Y.  in  the  plan)  ran  parallel  with  the  first, 
but  did  not  extend  along  its  whole  length.  It  measured  from 
end  to  end  about  86  feet,  and  from  side  to  side  21  feet  6 inches. 
Two  doorways  led  into  it  from  the  first  chamber,  and  two  others 


1 Palaces  of  Nineveh , p.  261. 

2 In  one  case  the  monarch  is  in  the 
act  of  driving  a spear  or  javelin  into 
the  head  of  a captive  with  one  hand, 
while  with  the  other  he  holds  him  by  a 


thong  attached  to  a ring  passed  through 
his  under  lip.  In  another  case  an  exe- 
cutioner flays  a captive  (or  criminal) 
who  is  fastened  to  a wall. 


Chap.  VI. 


THE  NOETH-WEST  COUET,  EESTOEED. 


293 


North-West  Court  of  Sargon’s  Palace  at  Khorsabad,  restored.  (After  Fergusson.) 


294 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


led  from  it  into  two  large  apartments.  One  communicated  with 
a lateral  hall  (marked  VI.  in  the  plan),  the  other  with  the  third 
hall  of  the  suite  which  is  here  the  special  object  of  our  attention. 
This  third  hall  (II.  in  the  plan)  was  of  the  same  length  as  the 
first,  but  was  less  wide  by  about  three  feet.  It  opened  by  three 
doorways  upon  a square  court,  which  has  been  called  “ the 
Temple  Court,”  from  a building  on  one  side  of  it,  which  will  be 
described  presently. 


The  sculptures  of  the  second  and  third  halls  represented  in  a 
double  row,  separated  by  an  inscribed  space  about  two  feet  in 
width,  chiefly  the  wars  of  the  monarch,  his  battles,  sieges,  recep- 
tion of  captives  and  of  spoil,  &c.  The  monarch  himself  appeared 
at  least  four  times,  standing  in  his  chariot,  thrice  in  calm  pro- 
cession, and  once  shooting  his  arrows  against  his  enemies. 
Besides  these,  the  upper  sculptures  on  one  side  exhibited  sacred 
ceremonies. 


Chap.  VI. 


THE  TEMPLE  COURT. 


295 


Placed  at  right  angles  to  this  primary  suite  of  three  halls 
were  two  others,  one  (IV.  in  the  plan)3  of  dimensions  little,  if 
at  all,  inferior  to  those  of  the  largest  (No.  VIII.),  the  other 
(VI.  in  the  plan)4  nearly  of  the  same  length,  but  as  narrow  as 
the  narrowest  of  the  three  (No.  V.).  Of  these  two  lateral  halls 
the  former  communicated  directly  with  No.  VIII.,  and  also  by 
a narrow  passage  room  (III.  in  the  plan)  with  No.  II.  The 
other  had  direct  communication  both  with  No.  II.  and  No.  V., 
but  none  with  No.  VIII.  With  this  hall  (No.  VI.)  three  smaller 
chambers  were  connected  (Nos.  IX.  XI.  and  XII.) ; with  the 
other  lateral  hall,  two  only  (Nos.  III.  and  VII.).  One  chamber 
attached  to  this  block  of  buildings  (I.  in  the  plan)  opened  only 
on  the  Temple  Court.  It  has  been  suggested  that  it  contained 
a staircase ; 5 but  of  this  there  is  no  evidence. 

The  Temple  Court — a square  of  180  feet — was  occupied  by 
buildings  on  three  sides,  and  open  on  one  only — that  to  the 
north-west.  The  state  apartments  closed  it  in  on  the  north- 
east, the  temple  on  the  south-west ; on  the  south-east  it  was 
bounded  by  the  range  of  buildings  called  “ Priests’  Eooms  ” in 
the  plan,  chambers  of  less  pretension  than  almost  any  that  have 
been  excavated.  The  principal  fa9ade  here  was  that  of  the 
state  apartments,  on  the  north-east.  On  this,  as  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  palace,  were  three  portals ; but  the  two  fronts  were 
not  of  equal  magnificence.  On  the  side  of  the  Temple  Court 
a single  pair  of  bulls,  facing  the  spectator,  guarded  the  middle 
portal ; the  side  portals  exhibited  only  figures  of  genii,  while 
the  spaces  between  the  portals  were  occupied,  not  with  bulls, 
but  merely  with  a series  of  human  figures,  resembling  those  in 
the  first  or  outer  court,  of  which  a representation  has  been 
already  given.  Two  peculiarities  marked  the  south-east  fa9ade. 
In  the  first  place,  it  lay  in  a perfectly  straight  line,  unbroken 
by  any  projection,  which  is  very  unusual  in  Assyrian  architecture. 


3  This  hall  opened  on  the  north- 
western terrace,  and  stood  so  near  its 
edge  that  two  of  its  sides  have  fallen. 

Internally  it  was  adorned  with  a single 

row  of  sculptures,  representing  the  king 
receiving  prisoners. 


4 The  sculptures  here  were  all  peace- 
able. The  king  occurred  three  times, 
with  the  sacred  flower  in  his  left  hand, 
receiving  presents  or  tribute. 

5 Fergusson’s  Palaces , p.  263. 


296 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


In  tlie  second  place,  as  if  to  compensate  for  this  monotony  in  its 
facial  line,  it  was  pierced  by  no  fewer  than  five  doorways,  all  of 
considerable  width,  and  two  of  them  garnished  with  bulls, 
namely,  the  second  and  the  fourth.  The  bulls  of  the  second 
gateway  were  of  the  larger,  those  of  the  fourth  were  of  the 
smaller  size ; they  stood  in  the  usual  manner,  a little  withdrawn 
within  the  gateways  and  looking  towards  the  spectator. 

Of  the  curious  building  which. closed  in  the  court  on  the  third 
or  south-west  side,  which  is  believed  to  have  been  a temple,6  the 
remains  are  unfortunately  very  slight.  It  stood  so  near  the 
edge  of  the  terrace  that  the  greater  part  of  it  has  fallen  into 
the  plain.  Less  than  half  of  the  ground-plan  is  left,  and  only 
a few  feet  of  the  elevation.  The  building  may  originally  have 
been  a square,  or  it  may  have  been  an  oblong,  as  represented  in 
the  plan.  It  was  approached  from  the  court  by  a flight  of  stone 
steps,  probably  six  in  number,  of  which  four  remain  in  place. 
This  flight  of  steps  was  placed  directly  opposite  to  the  central 
door  of  the  south-west  palace  fapade.  From  the  level  of  the 
court  to  that  of  the  top  of  the  steps,  a height  of  about  six  feet, 
a solid  platform  of  crude  brick  was  raised  as  a basis  for  the 
temple ; and  this  was  faced,  probably  throughout  its  whole 

extent,  with 'a  solid  wall  of 
hard  black  basalt,  orna- 
mented with  a cornice  in 
grey  limestone,  of  which  the 
accompanying  woodcuts  are 
representations.  Above  this 

Cornice  of  temple,  Khorsabad.  the  external  work  has  dis- 

appeared.  Internally,  two 
chambers  may  be  traced,  floored  with  a mixture  of  stones  and 
chalk  ; and  round  one  of  these  are  some  fragments  of  bas-reliefs, 
representing  sacred  subjects,  cut  on  the  same  black  basalt  as 
that  by  which  the  platform  is  cased,  and  sufficient  to  show  that 
the  same  style  of  ornamentation  prevailed  here  as  in  the  palace. 

The  principal  doorway  on  the  north-west  side  of  the  Temple 

6 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  yol.  v.  p.  53 ; Fergusson,  Palaces  of  Nineveh,  p.  292  ; 
Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  130. 


Chap.  YI. 


THE  HAREEM  COURT. 


297 


Court  communicated,  by  a passage,  with  another  and  similar 
doorway  (d  on  the  plan),  which  opened  into  a fourth  court,  the 
smallest  and  least  ornamented  of  those  on  the  upper  platform. 
The  mass  of  building,  whereof  this  court  occupied  the  centre,  is 
believed  to  have  constituted  the  Jiareem  or  private  apartments  of 
the  monarch.7  It  adjoined  the  state  apartments  at  its  northern 
angle,  but  had  no  direct  communication  with  them.  To  enter  it 
from  them  the  visitor  had  either  to  cross  the  Temple  Court  and 
proceed  by  the  passage  above  indicated,  or  else  to  go  round  by 
the  great  entrance  (X.  in  the  plan)  and  obtain  admission  by  the 
grand  portals  on  the  south-west  side  of  the  outer  court.  These 
latter  portals,  it  is  to  be  observed,  are  so  placed  as  to  command 
no  view  into  the  Hareem  Court,  though  it  is  opposite  to  them. 
The  passages  by  which  they  gave  entrance  into  that  court  must 
have  formed  some  such  angles  as  those  marked  by  the  dotted 
lines  in  the  plan,  the  result  being  that  visitors,  while  passing 
through  the  outer  court,  would  be  unable  to  catch  any  sight  of 
what  was  going  on  in  the  Hareem  Court,  even  if  the  great  doors 
happened  to  be  open.  Those  admitted  so  far  into  the  palace 
as  the  Temple  Court  were  more  favoured  or  less  feared.  The 
doorway  (d)  on  the  south-east  side  of  the  Hareem  Court  is 
exactly  opposite  the  chief  doorway  on  the  north-west  side  of  the 
Temple  Court,  and  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  a 
straight  passage  connected  the  two. 

It  is  uncertain  whether  the  Hareem  Court  was  surrounded  by 
buildings  on  every  side,  or  open  towards  the  south-west.  M.  Botta 
believed  that  it  was  open ; 8 and  the  analogy  of  the  other  courts 
would  seem  to  make  this  probable.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  how- 
ever, that  this  portion  of  the  great  Khorsabad  ruin  still  remains 
so  incompletely  examined.  Consisting  of  the  private  apart- 
ments, it  is  naturally  less  rich  in  sculptures  than  other  parts ; 
and  hence  it  has  been  comparatively  neglected.  The  labour 
would,  nevertheless,  be  well  employed  which  should  be  devoted 
to  this  part  of  the  ruin,  as  it  would  give  us  (what  we  do  not  now 
possess)  the  complete  ground-plan  of  an  Assyrian  palace.  It  is 

1 7 Fergusson,  Palaces  of  Nineveh , p.  254 ; Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  646. 

8 Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  v.  p.  42  ; and  compare  the  plan,  vol.  i.  pi.  6. 


298 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  future  excavators  will  direct  their 
efforts  to  this  easily  attainable  and  interesting  object. 

The  ground-plans  of  the  palaces,  and  some  sixteen  feet  of 
their  elevations,  are  all  that  fire  and  time  have  left  us  of  these 
remarkable  monuments.  The  total  destruction  of  the  upper 
portion  of  every  palatial  building  in  Assyria,  combined  with  the 
want  of  any  representation  of  the  royal  residences  upon  the  bas- 
reliefs,  reduces  us  to  mere  conjecture  with  respect  to  their 
height,  to  the  mode  in  which  they  were  roofed  and  lighted,  and 
even  to  the  question  whether  they  had  or  had  not  an  upper 
story.  On  these  subjects  various  views  have  been  put  forward 
by  persons  entitled  to  consideration ; and  to  these  it  is  proposed 
now  to  direct  the  reader’s  attention. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  had  they  an  upper  story  ? Mr.  Layard 
and  Mr.  Fergusson  decide  this  question  in  the  affirmative. 
Mr.  Layard  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  fact  is  one  which 
“ can  no  longer  be  doubted.” 9 He  rests  this  conclusion  on  two 
grounds — first,  on  a belief  that  “ upper  chambers  ” are  mentioned 
in  the  Inscriptions,  and  secondly,  on  the  discovery  by  himself, 
in  Sennacherib’s  palace  at  Koyunjik,  of  what  seemed  to  be  an 
inclined  way,  by  which  he  supposes  that  the  ascent  was  made  to 
an  upper  story.  The  former  of  these  two  arguments  must  be 
set  aside  as  wholly  uncertain.  The  interpretation  of  the  archi- 
tectural inscriptions  of  the  Assyrians  is  a matter  of  far  too  much 
doubt  at  present  to  serve  as  a groundwork  upon  which  theories 
can  properly  be  raised  as  to  the  plan  of  their  buildings.  With 
regard  to  the  inclined  passage,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  did 
not  appear  to  what  it  led.  It  may  have  conducted  to  a gallery 
looking  into  one  of  the  great  halls,  or  to  an  external  balcony 
overhanging  an  outer  court ; or  it  may  have  been  the  ascent  to 
the  top  of  a tower,  whence  a look-out  was  kept  up  and  down  the 
river.  Is  it  not  more  likely  that  this  ascent  should  have  been 
made  for  some  exceptional  purpose,  than  that  it  should  be  the 
only  specimen  left  of  the  ordinary  mode  by  which  one  half  of 
a palace  was  rendered  accessible  ? It  is  to  be  remembered  that 


Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  650. 


Chap.  YI.  ARGUMENTS  RESPECTING  AN  UPPER  STORY. 


299 


no  remains  of  a staircase,  whether  of  stone  or  of  wood,  have  been 
found  in  any  of  the  palaces,  and  that  there  is  no  other  instance 
in  any  of  them  even  of  an  inclined  passage.1  Those  who  think 
the  palaces  had  second  stories,  believe  these  stories  to  have  been 
reached  by  staircases  of  wood,  placed  in  various  parts  of  the 
buildings,  which  were  totally  destroyed  by  the  conflagrations  in 
which  the  palaces  perished.  But  it  is  at  least  remarkable  that 
no  signs  have  been  found  in  any  existing  walls  of  rests  for  the 
ends  of  beams,  or  of  anything  implying  staircases.  Hence 
M.  Botta,  the  most  careful  and  the  most  scientific  of  recent 
excavators,  came  to  a very  positive  conclusion  that  the  Khor- 
sabad  buildings  had  had  no  second  story,2  a conclusion  which  it 
would  not,  perhaps,  be  very  bold  to  extend  to  Assyrian  edifices 
generally. 

It  has  been  urged  by  Mr.  Fergusson  that  there  must  have 
been  an  upper  story  because,  otherwise,  all  the  advantage  of  the 
commanding  position  of  the  palaces,  perched  on  their  lofty  plat- 
forms, would  have  been  lost.3  The  platform  at  Khorsabad  was 
protected,  in  the  only  places  where  its  edge  has  been  laid  bare, 
by  a stone  wall  or  parapet  six  feet  in  height.  Such  a parapet 
continued  along  the  whole  of  the  platform  would  effectually 
have  shut  out  all  prospect  of  the  open  country  both  from  the 
platform  itself,  and  also  from  the  gateways  of  the  palace,  which 
are  on  the  same  level.  Nor  could  there  well  be  any  view  at  all 
from  the  ground-chambers,  which  had  no  windows,  at  any  rate 
within  fifteen  feet  of  the  floor.  To  enjoy  a view  of  anything 
but  the  dead  wall  skirting  the  mound,  it  was  necessary  (Mr. 
Fergusson  thinks)  to  mount  to  a second  story,  which  he  in- 
geniously places,  not  over  the  ground-rooms,  but  on  the  top  of 
the  outer  and  party  walls,  whose  structure  is  so  massive  that 
their  area  falls  (he  observes)  but  little  short  of  the  area  of  the 
ground-rooms  themselves.4 

This  reasoning  is  sufficiently  answered,  in  the  first  place,  by 
observing  that  we  do  not  know  whether  the  Assyrians  appreciated 


1 The  inclined  passage  of  Asshur-bani- 

pal’s  palace  at  Koyunjik  was  not  in  the 

palace,  but  led  from  the  level  of  the  city 

up  to  it. 


2 Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  v.  p.  62. 

3 Palaces  of  Nineveh,  p.  275. 

4 Ibid. 


300 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


tlie  advantage  of  a view  or  raised  their  palace  platforms  for  any 
such  object.  They  may  have  constructed  them  for  security  only, 
or  for  greater  ' dignity  and  greater  seclusion.  They  may  have 
looked  chiefly  to  comfort,  and  have  reared  them  in  order  to 
receive  the  benefit  of  every  breeze,  and  at  the  same  time  to  be 
above  the  elevation  to  which  gnats  and  mosquitoes  commonly 
rise.5  Or  there  may  be  a fallacy  in  concluding,  from  the  very 
slight  data  furnished  by  the  excavations  of  M.  Botta,6  that 
a palace  platform  was,  in  any  case,  skirted  along  its  whole 
length  by  a six-foot  parapet.  Nothing  is  more  probable  than 
that  in  places  the  Khorsabad  parapet  may  have  been  very  much 
lower  than  this ; and  elsewhere  it  is  not  even  ascertained  that 
any  parapet  at  all  edged  the  platform.  On  the  whole  we  seem 
to  have  no  right  to  conclude,  merely  on  account  of  the  small 
portions  of  parapet  wall  uncovered  by  M.  Botta,  that  an  upper 
story  was  a necessity  to  the  palaces.  If  the  Assyrians  valued 
a view,  they  may  easily  have  made  their  parapets  low  in  places : 
if  they  cared  so  little  for  it  as  to  shut  it  out  from  all  their  halls 
and  terraces,  they  may  not  improbably  have  dispensed  with  the 
advantage  altogether. 

The  two  questions  of  the  roofing  and  lighting  of  the  Assyrian 
palaces  are  so  closely  connected  together  that  they  will  most 
conveniently  be  treated  in  combination.  The  first  conjecture 
published  on  the  subject  of  the  roofing  was  that  of  M.  Flandin, 
who  suggested  that  the  chambers  generally — the  great  halls,  at 
any  rate — had  been  ceiled  with  a brick  vault.  He  thought  that 
the  complete  filling  up  of  the  apartments  to  the  height  of 
fifteen  or  twenty  feet  was  thus  best  explained  ; and  he  believed 
that  there  were  traces  of  the  fallen  vaulting  in  the  debris  with 
which  the  apartments  were  filled.  His  conjecture  was  combated, 
soon  after  he  put  it  forth,  by  M.  Botta,7  who  gave  it  as  his 
opinion — first,  that  the  walls  of  the  chambers,  notwithstanding 
their  great  thickness,  would  have  been  unable,  considering  their 


5 That  this  was  one  of  the  objects  held 

in  view  by  the  Babylonians  when  they 
erected  their  Temple  platforms,  is  con- 
jectured by  M.  Fresnel.  ( Journal  Asi- 

atique , Juin  1853,  pp.  528-531.) 


6 The  parapet  wall  was  observed  at 
most  in  two  places.  (See  the  shaded 
parts,  marked  a a on  the  plan,  p.  281.) 

. 7 Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  v.  pp. 
65-67. 


Chap.  VI. 


ROOFING  OF  PALACES. 


301 


material,  to  sustain  the  weight,  and  (still  more  to  bear)  the 
lateral  thrust,  of  a vaulted  roof ; and,  secondly,  that  such  a roof, 
if  it  had  existed  at  all,  must  have  been  made  of  baked  brick  or 
stone — crude  brick  being  too  weak  for  the  purpose — and  when 
it  fell  must  have  left  ample  traces  of  itself  within  the  apartments, 
whereas,  in  none  of  them,  though  he  searched,  could  he  find  any 
such  traces.  On  this  latter  point  M.  Botta  and  M.  Flandin — 
both  eye-witnesses — were  at  variance.  M.  Flandin  believed  that 
he  had  seen  such  traces,  not  only  in  numerous  broken  fragments 
of  burnt  brick  strewn  through  all  the  chambers,  but  in  occasional 
masses  of  brickwork  contained  in  some  of  them — actual  portions, 
as  he  thought,  of  the  original  vaulting.  M.  Botta,  however, 
observed — first,  that  the  quantity  of  baked  brick  within  the 
chambers  was  quite  insufficient  for  a vaulted  roof ; and,  secondly, 
that  the  position  of  the  masses  of  brickwork  noticed  by  M.  Flandin 
was  always  towards  the  sides,  never  towards  the  centres  of  the 
apartments ; a clear  proof  that  they  had  fallen  from  the  upper 
part  of  the  walls  above  the  sculptures,  and  not  from  a ceiling 
covering  the  whole  room.  He  further  observed  that  the 
quantity  of  charred  wood  and  charcoal  within  the  chambers, 
and  the  calcined  appearance  of  all  the  slabs,  were  pheno- 
mena incompatible  with  any  other  theory  than  that  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  palace  by  the  conflagration  of  a roof  mainly 
of  wood.8 

To  these  arguments  of  M.  Botta  may  be  added  another  from 
the  improbability  of  the  Assyrians  being  sufficiently  advanced  in 
architectural  science  to  be  able  to  construct  an  arch  of  the  width 
necessary  to  cover  some  of  the  chambers.  The  principle  of  the 
arch  was,  indeed,  as  will  be  hereafter  shown,9  well  known  to  the 
Assyrians ; but  hitherto  we  possess  no  proof  that  they  were 
capable  of  applying  it  on  a large  scale.  The  widest  arch  which 
has  been  found  in  any  of  the  buildings  is  that  of  the  Khorsabad 
town-gate  uncovered  by  M.  Place,10  which  spans  a space  of  (at 
most)  fourteen  or  fifteen  feet.  But  the  great  halls  of  the  Assyrian 


8 Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  v.  p.  68. 

9 Infra,  pp.  327-330. 

10  Journal  Asiatique,  Rapport  de  M. 


Mohl  pour  Aout  1853,  p.  150 ; Fer- 
gusson,  Handbook  of  Architecture , p. 

173. 


302 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


palaces  have  a width  of  twenty-five,  thirty,  and  even  forty  feet. 
It  is  at  any  rate  uncertain  whether  the  constructive  skill  of  their 
architects  could  have  grappled  successfully  with  the  difficulty  of 
throwing  a vault  over  so  wide  an  interval  as  even  the  least  of 
these. 

M.  Botta,  after  objecting,  certainly  with  great  force,  to  the 
theory  of  M.  Flandin,  proceeded  to  suggest  a theory  of  his  own. 
After  carefully  reviewing  all  the  circumstances,  he  gave  it  as  his 
opinion  that  the  Khorsabad  building  had  been  roofed  throughout 
with  a flat,  earth-covered  roofing  of  wood.  He  observed  that 
some  of  the  buildings  on  the  bas-reliefs  had  flat  roofs,  that  flat 
roofs  are  still  the  fashion  of  the  country,  and  that  the  debris 
within  the  chambers  were  exactly  such  as  a roof  of  that  kind 
would  be  likely,  if  destroyed  by  fire,  to  have  produced.1  He 
further  noticed  that  on  the  floors  of  the  chambers  in  various 
parts  of  the  palace,  there  had  been  discovered  stone  rollers, 
closely  resembling  those  still  in  use  at  Mosul  and  Baghdad,  for 
keeping  close-pressed  and  hard  the  earthen  surface  of  such  roofs  ; 
which  rollers  had,  in  all  probability,  been  applied  to  the  same 
use  by  the  Assyrians,  and,  being  kept  on  the  roofs,  had  fallen 
through  during  the  conflagration.2 

The  first  difficulty  which  presented  itself  here  was  one  of 
those  regarded  as  most  fatal  to  the  vaulting  theory,  namely,  the 
width  of  the  chambers.  Where  flat  timber  roofs  prevail  in  the 
East,  their  span  seems  never  to  exceed  twenty-five  feet.3  The 
ordinary  chambers  in  the  Assyrian  palaces  might,  undoubtedly, 
therefore,  have  been  roofed  in  this  way,  by  a series  of  horizontal 
beams  laid  across  them  from  side  to  side,  with  the  ends  resting 
upon  the  tops  of  the  side  walls.  But  the  great  halls  seemed  too 
wide  to  have  borne  such  a roofing  without  supports.  Accord- 
ingly, M.  Botta  suggested  that  in  the  greater  apartments  a 
single  or  a double  row  of  pillars  ran  down  the  middle,  reaching 
to  the  roof  and  sustaining  it.4  His  theory  was  afterwards  warmly 
embraced  by  Mr.  Fergusson,  who  endeavoured  to  point  out  the 
exact  position  of  the  pillars  in  the  three  great  halls  of  Sargon  at 

1 Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  v.  pp.  71,  72.  2 Ibid.  p.  72. 

3 Fergusson,  Palaces  of  Nineveh,  p.  276.  4 Monument , &c.,  vol.  v.  p.  69. 


Chap.  VI. 


LIGHTING  OF  PALACES. 


303 


Khorsabad.5  It  seems,  however,  a strong  and  almost  a fatal 
objection  to  this  theory,  that  no  bases  of  pillars  have  been  found 
within  the  apartments,  nor  any  marks  on  the  brick  floors  of  such 
bases  or  of  the  pressure  of  the  pillars.  M.  Botta  states  that  he 
made  a careful  search  for  bases,  or  for  marks  of  pillars,  on  the 
pavement  of  the  north-east  hall  (No.  VIII.)  at  Khorsabad,  but 
that  he  entirely  failed  to  discover  any.6  This  negative  evidence 
is  the  more  noticeable  as  stone  pillar-bases  have  been  found  in 
wide  doorways,  where  they  would  have  been  less  necessary  than 
in  the  chambers,  as  pillars  in  doorways  could  have  had  but  little 
weight  to  sustain. 

M.  Botta  and  Mr.  Fergusson,  who  both  suppose  that  in 
an  Assyrian  palace  the  entire  edifice  was  roofed  in,  and  only  the 
courts  left  open  to  the  sky,  suggest  two  very  different  modes  by 
which  the  buildings  may  have  been  lighted.  M.  Botta  brings  light 
in  from  the  roof  by  means  of  wooden  louvres , such  as  are  still 
employed  for  the  purpose  in  Armenia  and  parts  of  India,7  whereof 
he  gives  the  representation  which  is  reproduced  on  the  next  page. 
Mr.  Fergusson  introduces  light  from  the  sides,  by  supposing  that 
the  roof  did  not  rest  directly  on  the  walls,  but  on  rows  of  wooden 
pillars  placed  along  the  edge  of  the  walls  both  internally  towards 
the  apartments  and  externally  towards  the  outer  air.  The  only 


5 Palaces  of  Nineveh , p.  262  ; Hand- 
book of  Architecture,  p.  171. 

6 Monument  de  Ninive,  p.  70.  Com- 
pare Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp. 
649,  650.  It  must  further  be  noted,  as 
throwing  considerable  doubt  on  the  whole 
spirit  of  Mr.  Fergusson’s  Assyrian  re- 
storations, that  their  essence  consists  in 
giving  a thoroughly  columnar  character, 
both  internally  and  externally,  to  Assy- 
rian buildings,  whereas  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  features  in  the  remains  is 
the  almost  entire  absence  of  the  column. 
A glance  at  the  restoration  already  given 
from  Mr.  Fergusson  (supra,  p.  293),  or 
at  that,  by  the  same  ingenious  gentle- 
man, which  forms  the  frontispiece  to 
Mr.  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  will 
show  the  striking  difference,  and  (as  it 
seems  to  me)  the  want  of  harmony  in 
his  restorations  between  the  basement 

story  of  a palace,  which  is  all  that  we 
can  reconstruct  with  any  certainty,  and 


the  entire  remainder  of  the  edifice.  Mr. 
Fergusson  supports  his  view  that  the 
column  was  really  thus  prominent  in 
Assyrian  buildings  by  the  analogy  of 
Susa  and  Persepolis  ; but  the  columnar 
edifices  at  those  places  are  on  an  entirely 
different  plan  from  that  of  an  Assyrian 
palace.  Those  buildings  had  no  solid 
walls  at  all  (Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana , 
pp.  374,  375),  but  lay  entirely  open  to 
the  air ; they  were  mere  groves  of  pillars 
supporting  a flat  roof — convenient  sum- 
mer residences.  The  evidence  of  the 
remains  seems  to  be  that  there  was  a 
strong  contrast  between  Assyrian  and 
Persian  architecture,  the  latter  depend- 
ing almost  wholly  on  the  column,  and 
elaborating  it  as  much  as  possible ; the 
former  scarcely  allowing  the  column  at 
all,  and  leaving  it  almost  in  its  primitive 
condition  of  a mere  post.  (See  below, 
p.  310.) 

7  Fergusson,  Palaces  of  Nineveh,  p.  269. 


304 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


ground  for  this  supposition,  which  is  of  a very  startling  character, 
seems  to  be  the  occurrence  in  a single  bas-relief,  representing  a city 
in  Armenia,  of  what  is  regarded  as  a similar  arrangement.  But 
it  must  be  noted  that  the  lower  portion  of  the  building,  repre- 
sented opposite,  bears  no  resemblance  at  all  to  the  same  part  of 
an  Assyrian  palace,  since  in  it  perpendicular  lines  prevail,  whereas, 
in  the  Assyrian  palaces,  the  lower  lines  were  almost  wholly 
horizontal ; and  that  it  is  not  even  certain  that  the  upper  por- 


Armenian  louvre  (after  Botta). 


tion,  where  the  pillars  occur,  is  an  arrangement  for  admitting 
light,  since  it  may  be  merely  an  ornamentation. 

The  difficulties  attaching  to  every  theory  of  roofing  and 
lighting  which  places  the  whole  of  an  Assyrian  palace  under 
covert,  has  led  some  to  suggest  that  the  system  actually  adopted 
in  the  larger  apartments  was  that  hypzethral  one  which  is  gene- 
rally believed  to  have  prevailed  in  the  Greek  temples,8  and 


8 Mr.  Fergusson  disallows  the  hypse- 
thral  system  even  here  ( True  Principles 
of  Beauty , p.  381)  ; hut  later  writers  do 
not  seem  converted  by  his  arguments. 
(See  the  article  on  Tempeum  in  Smith’s 


Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Anti- 
quities, p.  1105,  2nd  edition;  and  com- 
pare Mr.  Falkener’s  Daedalus,  Introduc- 
tion, pp.  18-20.) 


Chap.  VI. 


LIGHTING  OF  PALACES. 


305 


ifd 

taa.. 

fWWI 


YVWW\ 


a 

fil 

E3 

Wl 

] 

which  was  undoubtedly  followed  in  the  ordinary  Roman  house. 
Mr.  Layard  was  the  first  to  put  forward  the  view7  that  the  larger 
halls,  at  any  rate,  were 
uncovered,  a project- 
ing ledge,  sufficiently 
wide  to  afford  shelter 
and  shade,  being  car- 
ried round  the  four 
sides  of  the  apart- 
ment, while  the  centre 
remained  open  to  the 
sky.9  The  objections 
taken  to  this  view  are 
— first,  that  far  too 
much  heat  and  light 
would  thereby  have 
been  admitted  into 
the  palace;  secondly, 
that  in  the  rainy  sea- 
son far  too  much  rain 
would  have  come  in 
for  comfort  ; and, 
thirdly,  that  the  pave- 
ment of  the  halls, 
being  mere  sun-dried 
brick,  would,  under 
such  circumstances, 
have  been  turned  into 
mud.1  If  these  ob- 
jections are  not  re- 
moved, they  would 
be,  at  any  rate,greatly 


Armenian  buildings  (from  Koyunjik). 


lessened  by  supposing  the  roofing  to  have  extended  to  two- 
thirds  or  three-fourths  of  the  apartment,  and  the  opening  to 


9 Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  i.  p. 
259.  Compare  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p. 
647  ; and  see  also  the  restoration  of  an 
Assyrian  interior  in  his  Monuments  of 

VOL.  I. 


Nineveh , 1st  series,  PI.  2,  from  which  the 
illustration  overleaf  is  taken. 

1 Fergusson,  Palaces  of  Nineveh,  p.  270. 


X 


Interior  of  an  Assyrian  Palace,  restored  (after  Layard). 


Chap.  VI. 


PALACES  LIGHTED  FROM  THE  ROOFS. 


307 


have  been  comparatively  narrow.  We  may  also  suppose  that 
on  very  bright  and  on  very  rainy  days  carpets  or  other  awnings 
were  stretched  across  the  opening,  which  furnished  a tolerable 
defence  against  the  weather. 

On  the  whole,  our  choice  seems  to  lie — so  far  as  the  great 
halls  are  concerned — between  this  theory  of  the  mode  in  which 
they  were  roofed  and  lighted,  and  a supposition  from  which 
archgeologists  have  hitherto  shrunk,  namely,  that  they  were 
actually  spanned  from  side  to  side  by  beams.  If  we  remember 
that  the  Assyrians  did  not  content  themselves  with  the  woods 
produced  in  their  own  country,  but  habitually  cut  timber  in  the 
forests  of  distant  regions,  as  for  instance  of  Amanus,  Hermon, 
and  Lebanon,  which  ihey  conveyed  to  Nineveh,  we  shall  perhaps 
not  think  it  impossible  that  they  may  have  been  able  to  ac- 
complish the  feat  of  roofing  in  this  simple  fashion  even  chambers 
of  thirteen  or  fourteen  yards  in  width.  Mr.  Layard  observes 
that  rooms  of  almost  equal  width  with  the  Assyrian  halls  are 
to  this  day  covered  in  with  beams  laid  horizontally  from  side 
to  side  in  many  parts  of  Mesopotamia,  although  the  only  timber 
used  is  that  furnished  by  the  indigenous  palms  and  poplars.2 
May  not  more  have  been  accomplished  in  this  way  by  the 
Assyrian  architects,  who  had  at  their  disposal  the  lofty  firs  and 
cedars  of  the  above-mentioned  regions  ? 

If  the  halls  were  roofed  in  this  way,  they  may  have  been 
lighted  by  louvres  ; 3 or  the  upper  portion  of  the  walls,  which  is 
now  destroyed,  may  have  been  pierced  by  windows,  which  are 
of  frequent  occurrence,  and  seem  generally  to  be  somewhat  high 
placed,  in  the  representations  of  buildings  upon  the  sculptures. 
(See  overleaf.) 

It  might  have  been  expected  that  the  difficulties  with  respect 
to  Assyrian  roofing  and  lighting  which  have  necessitated  this 
long  discussion,  would  have  received  illustration,  or  even 
solution  from  the  forms  of  buildings  which  occur  so  frequently 
on  the  bas-reliefs.  But  this  is  not  found  to  be  the  actual  result. 
The  forms  are  rarely  Assyrian,  since  they  occur  commonly 

2 Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  pp.  259,  260. 

3 Such  as  that  represented  above,  p.  304. 

x 2 


308 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YI. 


in  the  sculptures  which  represent  the  foreign  campaigns  of 
the  kings ; and  they  have  the  appearance  of  being  to  a great 
extent  conventional,  being  nearly  the  same,  whatever  country 

is  the  object  of  attack.  In 
the  few  cases  where  there  is 
ground  for  regarding  the 
building  as  native  and  not 
foreign,  it  is  never  palatial, 
but  belongs  either  to  sacred 
or  to  domestic  architecture. 

Assyrian  castle  (Nimrud  obelisk).  TllUS  the  monumental  repre- 

sentations  of  Assyrian  build- 
ings which  have  come  down  to  us,  throw  little  or  no  light  on  the 
construction  of  their  palaces.  As,  however,  they  have  an 
interest  of  their  own,  and  will  serve  to  illustrate  in  some  degree 

the  domestic  and  sacred  ar- 
chitecture of  the  people,  some 
of  the  most  remarkable  of 
them  will  be  here  introduced. 

The  representation  No.  I. 
is  from  a slab  at  Khorsabad, 
It  is  placed  on  the  summit  of 
a hill,  and  is  regarded  by 
M.  Botta  as  an  altar.  No.  II. 
is  from  the  same  slab.  It 

No.  I.-Assyrian  altar  (?)  from  a bas-relief,  stands  t fte  foot  0f  fte  hill 
Khorsabad. 

crowned  by  No.  I.  It  has 
been  called  a “fishing  pavilion;”4  but  it  is  most  probably  a 
small  temple,  since  it  bears  a good  deal  of  resemblance  to  other 
representations  which  are  undoubted  temples,  as  (particularly) 
to  No.  V.  (p.  310).  No.  III.,  which  is  from  Lord  Aberdeen’s  black 
stone,  is  certainly  a temple,  since  it  is  accompanied  by  a priest,  a 
sacred  tree,  and  an  ox  for  sacrifice.5  The  representation  No.  IY. 
is  also  thought  to  be  a temple.  It  is  of  earlier  date  than  any  of 


l l 


l I 


O 


XX 

l 

l l 

l 

l 

i Fergusson,  Handbook  of  Architecture, 
p.  179. 

5 See  the  representation  in  Mr.  Fer- 


gusson’s  Palaces  of  Nineveh  Restored , p. 
298.  This  black  stone  is  of  the  time  of 
Esar-haddon. 


Chap.  YT. 


ASSYRIAN  TEMPLES. 


309 


the  others,  being  taken  from  a slab  belonging  to  the  North-west 
Palace  at  Nimrud,  and  is  remarkable  in  many  ways.  First,  the 


want  of  symmetry  is  curious,  and  unusual.  Irregular  as  are  the 
palaces  of  the  Assyrian  kings,  there  is  for  the  most  part  no 
want  of  regularity  in  their  sacred  build- 
ings. The  two  specimens  here  adduced 
(No.  II.  and  No.  III.)  are  proof  of  this ; 
and  such  remains  of  actual  temples  as 
exist  are  in  accordance  with  the  sculptures 
in  this  particular.  The  right-hand  aisle 
in  No.  IV.,  having  nothing  correspondent 
to  it  on  the  other  side,  is  thus  an  anomaly 
in  Assyrian  sacred  architecture.  The 
patterning  of  the  pillars  with  chevrons  is  No.  m._ Assyrian  temple, 
also  remarkable ; and  their  capitals  are  from  Lord  Aberdeen’s 
altogether  unique.6  No.  V.  is  a tem- 
ple of  a more  elaborate  character.  It  is  from  the  sculptures 


8 On  this  point,  see  below,  pp.  333,  334v 


3io 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


of  Asshur-bani-pal,  the  son  of  Esar-haddon,  and  possesses 
several  features  of  great  interest..  The  body  of  the  temple 
is  a columnar  structure,  exhibiting  at  either  corner  a broad 

pilaster  surmounted  by  a 
capital  composed  of  two  sets 
of  volutes  placed  one  over 
the  other.  Between  the  two 
pilasters  are  two  pillars  rest- 
ing upon  very  extraordinary 
rounded  bases,  and  crowned 
by  capitals  not  unlike  the 
Corinthian.  We  might  have 
supposed  the  bases  mere 
figments  of  the  sculptor,  but 
No.  IV. — Assyrian  temple  (Nimrud).  for  an  independent  evidence 

of  the  actual  employment  by 
the  Assyrians  of  rounded  pillar-bases.  Mr.  Layard  discovered 
at  Koyunjik  a set  of  “ circular  pedestals,”  whereof  he  gives  the 


representation  which  is  figured  on  the  next  page.  They  appeared 
to  form  part  of  a double  line  of  similar  objects,  extending  from 
the  edge  of  the  platform  to  an  entrance  of  the  palace,  and  pro- 
bably (as  Mr.  Layard  suggests)  supported  the  wooden  pillars  of  a 


Chai>.  VI. 


PILLAR  BASES. 


3” 


Circular  pillar-base,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard). 


covered  way  by  which  the  palace  was  approached  on  this  side. 
Above  the  pillars  the  temple  (No.  Y.)  exhibits  a heavy  cornice  or 
entablature  projecting  considerably,  and  finished  at  the  top  with 
a row  of  gradines.  (Compare  No.  II.)  At  one  side  of  this  main 
building  is  a small  chapel 
or  oratory,  also  finished 
with  gradines,  against  the 
wall  of  which  is  a repre- 
sentation of  a king,  stand- 
ing in  a species  of  frame 
arched  at  the  top.  A 
road  leads  straight  up  to 
this  royal  tablet,  and  in 
this  road  within  a little 
distance  of  the  king  stands 
an  altar.  The  temple 
occupies  the  top  of  a 
mound,  which  is  covered 
with  trees  of  two  different 
kinds,  and  watered  by  rivulets.  On  the  right  is  a “ hanging 
garden,”  artificially  elevated  to  the  level  of  the  temple  by 
means  of  masonry  supported  on  an  arcade,  the  arch  here  used 
being  not  the  round  arch  but  a pointed  one.  No.  VI.  (overleaf) 
is  unfortunately  very  imperfect,  the  entire  upper  portion  having 
been  lost.  Even,  however,  in  its  present  mutilated  state  it 
represents  by  far  the  most  magnificent  building  that  has  yet 
been  found  upon  the  bas-reliefs.  The  fapade,  as  it  now  stands, 
exhibits  four  broad  pilasters  and  four  pillars,  alternating  in 
pairs,  excepting  that,  as  in  the  smaller  temples,  pilasters  occupy 
both  corners.  In  two  cases,  the  base  of  the  pilaster  is  carved 
into  the  figure  of  a winged  bull,  closely  resembling  the  bulls 
which  commonly  guarded  the  outer  gates  of  palaces.  In  the 
other  two  the  base  is  plain — a piece  of  negligence,  probably,  on 
the  part  of  the  artist.  The  four  pillars  all  exhibit  a rounded 
base,  nearly  though  not  quite  similar  to  that  of  the  pillars  in 
No.  Y. ; and  this  rounded  base  in  every  case  rests  upon  the 
back  of  a walking  lion.  We  might  perhaps  have  imagined  that 


Chap.  VI. 


PILLABS  SUPPOKTED  ON  ANIMALS. 


313 


this  was  a mere  fanciful  or  mythological  device  of  the  artist’s, 
on  a par  with  the  representations  at  Bavian,  where  figures, 
supposed  to  be  Assyrian  deities,  stand  upon  the  backs  of 
animals  resembling  dogs.7 
But  one  of  M.  Place’s  ar- 
chitectural discoveries  seems 
to  make  it  possible,  or  even 
probable,  that  a real  feature 
in  Assyrian  building  is  here 
represented.  M.  Place  found 
the  arch  of  the  town  gate- 
way, which  he  exhumed  at 
Khorsabad,  to  spring  from 
the  backs  of  the  two  bulls 
which  guarded  it  on  either 
side.8  Thus  the  lions  at  the 
base  of  the  pillars  may  be 
real  architectural  forms,  as 
well  as  the  winged  bulls 
which  support  the  pilasters. 

The  lion  was  undoubtedly  a 
sacred  animal,  emblematic 
of  divine  power,  and  specially 
assigned  to  Nergal,  the  As- 
syrian Mars,  the  nod  at  once 

0 . TT.  Porch  of  the  Cathedral,  Trent. 

ot  war  and  01  hunting.  liis 

introduction  on  the  exteriors  of  buildings  was  common  in  Asia 
Minor ; but  no  other  example  occurs  of  his  being  made  to  sup- 
port a pillar,  excepting  in  the  so-called  Byzantine  architecture 
of  Northern  Italy. 

No.  VII  a.  (overleaf)  introduces  us  to  another  kind  of 
Assyrian  temple,  or  perhaps  it  should  rather  be  said  to  another 
feature  of  Assyrian  temples — common  to  them  with  Babylonian 


7 See  Layard’s  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 

2nd  series,  PI.  5 1 ; and  compare  Nineveh 
and  Babylon , p.  208.  A similar  treat- 
ment of  divine  figures  is  common  upon 
the  Cylinders.  (See  Cullimore’s  Cylinders , 
Nos.  19,  20,  30,  55,  96,  &c.)  It  is  found 


likewise  in  Cappadocia.  (See  Van  Len- 
nep’s  Travels  in  Little  Known  parts  of 
Asia  Minor , vol.  ii.  p.  118. 

8 Journal  Asiatique,  Aodt  1853,  p. 
150 ; Fergusson,  Handbook  of  Architec- 
ture, vol.  i.  p.  173. 


3 14 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


— the  tower  or  ziggurat.  This  appears  to  have  \ been  always 
built  in  stages,  which  probably  varied  in  number — never, 
however,  so  far  as  appears,  exceeding  seven.  The  sculptured 


No.  VII  a. — Tower  of  a temple,  Koyunjik  (after  Layard). 


example  before  us,  which  is  from  a bas-relief  found  at  Koyunjik, 
distinctly  exhibits  four  stages,  of  which  the  topmost,  owing  to 
the  destruction  of  the  upper  portion  of  the  tablet,  is  imperfect. 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  in  this 


WHIZZ/ 


I 


instance  there  was  above  the 
fourth  a fifth  stage,  consisting 
of  a shrine  like  that  which  at 
Babylon  crowned  the  great 
temple  of  Belus.9  The  complete 
elevation  would  then  have  been 
nearly  as  in  No.  VII  b. 

No.  VII  b. — Tower  of  temple  (restored.)  ^ie  f°H°wing  ' features  are 

worthy  of  remark  in  this  temple. 
The  basement  story  is  panelled  with  indented  rectangular 


ipi 


am 


Herod,  i.  181. 


Chap.  VI. 


TEMPLE  TOWERS  OR  ZIGGURATS. 


315 


recesses,  as  was  the  case  at  Nimrud,1  and  at  the  Birs ; 2 the 
remainder  are  plain,  as  are  most  of  the  stages  in  the  Birs 
temple.  Up  to  the  second  of  these  squared  recesses  on  either 
side  there  runs  what  seems  to  be  a road  or  path,  which  sweeps 
away  down  the  hill  whereon  the  temple  stands  in  a bold  curve, 
each  path  closely  matching  the  other.  The  whole  building  is 
perfectly  symmetrical,  except  that  the  panelling  is  not  quite 
uniform  in  width  nor  arranged  quite  regularly.  On  the  second 


Tower  of  Great  Temple  at  Nimrud  (after  Layard). 


stage,  exactly  in  the  iriiddle,  there  is  evidently  a doorway,  and 
on  either  side  of  it  a shallow  buttress  or  pilaster.  In  the  centre 
of  tjie  third  story,  exactly  over  the  doorway  of  the  second,  is  a 
squared  niche.  In  front  of  the  temple,  but  not  exactly  opposite 
its  centre,  may  be  seen  the  propylsea,  consisting  of  a squared 
doorway  placed  under  a battlemented  wall,  between  two  towers 
also  battlemented.  It  is  curious  that  the  paths  do  not  lead  to 
the  propyleea,  but  seem  to  curve  round  the  hill. 

Bemains  of  ziggurats  similar  to  this  have  been  discovered  at 
Khorsabad,  at  Nimrud,  and  at  Kileh-Sherghat.  The  conical 


1 See  the  illustration,  overleaf. 

2 Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xvii.  p.  13. 


Chap.  VI. 


TEMPLE  TOWERS. 


317 


mound  at  Khorsabad  explored  by  M.  Place  was  found  to  contain 
a tower  in  seven  stages ; 3 that  of  Nimrud,  which  is  so  striking 
an  object  from  the  plain,4  and  which  was  carefully  examined  by 
Mr.  Layard,  presented  no  positive  proof  of  more  than  a single 
stage ; but,  from  its  conical  shape,  and  from  the  general  analogy 
of  such  towers,  it  is  believed  to  have  had  several  stages.  Mr. 
Layard  makes  their  number  five,  and  crowns  the  fifth  with  a 
circular  tower  terminating  in  a heavy  cornice ; 5 but  for  this 
last  there  is  no  authority  at  all,  and  the  actual  number  of  the 
stages  is  wholly  uncertain.  The  base  of  this  ziggurat  was  a 
square,  167  feet  6 inches  each  way,  composed  of  a solid  mass  of 
sun-dried  brick,  faced  at  bottom  to  the  height  of  twenty  feet 
with  a wall  of  hewn  stones,  more  than  eight  feet  and  a half  in 
thickness.  The  outer  stones  were  bevelled  at  the  edges,  and  on 
the  two  most  conspicuous  sides  the  wall  was  ornamented  with  a 
series  of  shallow  recesses  (see  opposite  page),  arranged  without 
very  much  attention  to  regularity.  The  other  two  sides,  one  of 
which  abutted  on  and  was  concealed  by  the  palace  mound, 
while  the  other  faced  towards  the  city,  were  perfectly  plain. 
At  the  top  of  the  stone  masonry  was  a row  of  gradines,  snch  as 
are  often  represented  in  the  sculptures  as  crowning  an  edifice,6 
Above  the  stone  masonry  the  tower  was  continued  at  nearly  the 
same  width,  the  casing  of  stone  being  simply  replaced  by  one  of 
burnt  brick  of  inferior  thickness.  It  is  supposed  that  the  upper 
stages  were  constructed  in  the  same  way.  As  the  actual  present 
height  of  the  ruin  is  140  feet,  and  the  upper  stages  have  so 
entirely  crumbled  away,  it  can  scarcely  be  supposed  that  the 
original  height  fell  much  short  of  200  feet.7 

The  most  curious  of  the  discoveries  made  during  the  exami- 
nation of  this  building,  was  the  existence  in  its  interior  of  a 
species  of  chamber  or  gallery,  the  true  object  of  which  still 
remains  wholly  unexplained.  This  gallery  was  100  feet  long, 
12  feet  high,  and  no  more  than  six  feet  broad.  It  was  arched  or 


3 Fergusson,  Handbook  of  Architecture , 
p.  172.  I have  been  unable  to  obtain 
any  detailed  account  of  this  building. 

4 Supra,  p.  202. 

5 Nineveh  and  Babylon , plan  opp.  p. 


123  ; Monuments  of  Nineveh , 2nd  series, 
frontispiece.  (See  the  woodcut,  p.  315.) 
a See  woodcut  No.  V.  on  p.  3m. 

7 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  129  ; 
comp.  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  7. 


3 1 8 THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  VI. 

vaulted  at  top,  both  the  side  walls  and  the  vaulting  being  of 
sun-dried  brick.  Its  position  was  exactly  half-way  between  the 

tower’s  northern  and 
southern  faces,  and  with 
these  it  ran  parallel,  its 
height  in  the  tower 
being  such  that  its  floor 
was  exactly  on  a level 
with  the  top  of  the 
stone  masonry,  which 
again  was  level  with 
the  terrace  or  platform, 
whereupon  the  Nimrud 
palaces  stood.  There 
was  no  trace  of  any  wray 
by  which  the  gallery  was  intended  to  be  entered ; its  walls  showed 
no  signs  of  inscription,  sculpture,  or  other  ornament ; and 
absolutely  nothing  was  found  in  it.  Mr.  Layard,  prepossessed 
with  an  opinion  derived  from  several  confused  notices  in  the 
classical  writers,8  believed  the  tower  to  be  a sepulchral  monu- 
ment, and  the  gallery  to  be  the  tomb  in  which  was  originally 
deposited  “ the  embalmed  body  of  the  king.”  9 To  account  for 
the  complete  disappearance,  not  only  of  the  body,  but  of  all  the 
ornaments  and  vessels  found  commonly  in  the  Mesopotamian 
tombs,  he  suggested  that  the  gallery  had  been  rifled  in  times 
long  anterior  to  his  visit ; and  he  thought  that  he  found  traces, 
both  internally  and  externally,  of  the  tunnel  by  which  it  had 


8 Xenophon  and  Ctesias  both  noticed 
this  remarkable  edifice.  ( Anab . iii.  4, 

§ 9.)  Xenophon  calls  it  a “ pyramid/’ 
but  shows  that  it  more  resembled  a tower 
by  saying  that  its  height  (200  ft.)  was 
double  its  width  at  the  base,  which  he 
estimates  at  100  ft.  He  gives  no  account 
of  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended. 
Ctesias,  who  enormously  exaggerates  its 
size,  making  it  10  stadia  wide  and  9 
stadia  (more  than  a mile!)  high,  was 
the  first  to  give  it  a sepulchral  character. 
, He  said  that  it  was  built  by  Semiramis 
over  the  body  of  her  husband,  Ninus. 


He  placed  it,  however,  if  we  may  believe 
Diodorus  (ii.  7),  at  Nineveh,  and  upon 
the  Euphrates  ! Next  to  these  writers, 
Amyntas,  one  of  the  historians  of  Alex- 
ander, noticed  the  edifice.  He  called  it 
the  tomb  of  Sardanapalus ; and,  like 
Ctesias,  placed  it  at  Nineveh  (ap.  A then. 
Deipn.  xii.  4,  § 11).  Ovid  no  doubt  in- 
tended the  same  building  by  his  “ busta 
Nini,”  which,  however,  according  to  him, 
lay  in  the  vicinity  of  Babylon  ( Meta - 
morph,  iv.  88). 

9 Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  128. 


Chap.  VI. 


GROUND  PLANS  OF  TEMPLES. 


319 


been  entered.  But  certainly,  if  this  long  and  narrow  vault  was 
intended  to  receive  a body,  it  is  most  extraordinarily  shaped  for 
the  purpose.  What  other  sepulchral  chamber  is  there  any- 
where of  so  enormous  a length?  Without  pretending  to  say 
what  the  real  object  of  the  gallery  was,1  we  may  feel  tolerably 
sure  that  it  was  not  a tomb.  The  building  which  contained  it 


No.  I. 

A.  Outer  court. 

b.  Main  entrance,  guarded  by  winged  lions. 

c.  Pronaos  or  vestibule. 

d.  Passage  leading  from  vestibule  into  temple. 

e.  Cell  of  temple. 

f.  Shrine,  paved  with  a single  stone. 
g g.  Priests’  apartments. 

A.  Second  entrance  to  temple. 


No.  ir. 

A.  Outer  court. 

b.  Main  entrance,  guarded  by  lions  (not 

winged). 

c.  Cell  of  temple. 

d.  Shrine,  paved  with  a single  stone. 

e.  Small  closet  (vestry  ?). 

f.  Priests’  apartment. 


Ground  Plans  of  Temples,  Nimrud  (after  Layard). 


was  a temple-tower,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  the  religious 
feelings  of  the  Assyrians  would  have  allowed  the  application 
of  a religious  edifice  to  so  utilitarian  a purpose. 

Besides  the  ziggurat  or  tower,  which  may  commonly  have 
been  surmounted  by  a chapel  or  shrine,  an  Assyrian  temple 
had  always  a number  of  basement  chambers,  in  one  of  which 


1 It  may  perhaps  have  had  a religious  bearing  ; and  similar  galleries  may  perhaps 
exist  under  all  temple-towers. 


320 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


was  the  principal  shrine  of  the  god.  This  was  a square  or 
slightly  oblong  recess  at  the  end  of  an  oblong  apartment,  raised 
somewhat  above  its  level;  it  was  paved  (sometimes,  if  not 
always)  with  a single  slab,  the  weight  of  which  must  occasion- 
ally have  been  as  much  as  thirty  tons.2  One  or  two  small 
closets  opened  out  from  the  shrine,  in  which  it  is  likely  that 
the  priests  kept  the  sacerdotal  garments  and  the  sacrificial 
utensils.3  Sometimes  the  cell  of  the  temple,  or  chamber  into 
which  the  shrine  opened,  was  reached  through  another  apart- 
ment, corresponding  to  the  Greek  pronaos.  In  such  a case, 
care  seems  to  have  been  taken  so  to  arrange  the  outer  and 
inner  doorways  of  the  vestibule,  that  persons  passing  by  the 
outer  doorway  should  not  be  able  to  catch  a sight  of  the  shrine.4 
Where  there  was  no  vestibule,  the  entrance  into  the  cell  or 
body  of  the  temple  seems  to  have  been  placed  at  the  side, 
instead  of  at  the  end,  probably  with  the  same  object.5  Besides 
these  main  parts  of  a temple,  a certain  number  of  chambers  are 
always  found,  which  appear  to  have  been  priests’  apartments. 

The  ornamentation  of  temples,  to  judge  by  the  few  specimens 
which  remain,  was  very  similar  to  that  of  palaces.  The  great 
gateways  were  guarded  by  colossal  bulls  (?)  or  lions  (see  oppo- 
site), accompanied  by  the  usual  sacred  figures,  and  sometimes 
covered  with  inscriptions.  The  entrances  and  some  portions  of 
the  chambers  were  ornamented  with  the  customary  sculptured 
slabs,  representing  here  none  but  religious  subjects.  No  great 
proportion  of  the  interior,  however,  was  covered  in  this  way,  the 
walls  being  in  general  only  plastered  and  then  painted  with 
figures  or  patterns.  Externally,  enamelled  bricks  were  used  as 
a decoration  wherever  sculptured  slabs  did  not  hide  the  crude 
brick.6 

Much  the  same  doubts  and  difficulties  beset  the  subjects  of 


2  The  single  slab  which  filled  the  re- 

cess (/  in  ground-plan,  No.  I.)  in  the 
greater  of  the  two  Nimrud  temples,  was 

21  ft.  long,  16  ft.  7 in.  broad,  and  1 ft. 

1 in.  thick.  It  contained  thus  375  cubic 

feet  of  stone,  and  must  have  weighed 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  30  tons.  (See  Layard’s 


Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  352.) 

3 Ibid.  p.  357. 

4 Note  the  position  of  the  doorways, 
b and  d,  in  ground-plan  No.  I. 

5 See  ground-plan  No.  II.,  entrance  b. 

6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  359. 


Chap.  VL 


TEMPLE  ENTRANCE, 


321 


YOL.  I, 


Y 


Entrance  to  smaller  temple,  Nimrud  (after  Layard). 


322 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


the  roofing  and  lighting  of  the  temples  as  those  which  have 
been  discussed  already  in  connection  with  the  palaces.  Though 
the  span  of  the  temple-chambers  is  less  than  that  of  the  great 
palace  halls,  still  it  is  considerable,  sometimes  exceeding  thirty 
feet.7  No  effort  seems  made  to  keep  the  temple-chambers 
narrow,  for  their  width  is  sometimes  as  much  as  two-tliirds  of 
their  length.  Perhaps,  therefore,  they  were  hypsethral,  like 
the  temples  of  the  Greeks.  All  that  seems  to  be  certain  is 
that  what  roofing  they  had  was  of  wood,8  which  at  Nimrud  was 
cedar,  brought  probably  from  the  mountains  of  Syria. 


Of  the  domestic  architecture  of  the  Assyrians  we  possess 
absolutely  no  specimen.  Excavation  has  been  hitherto  confined 
to  the  most  elevated  portions  of  the  mounds  which  mark  the 
sites  of  cities,  where  it  was  likely  that  remains  of  the  greatest 
interest  would  be  found.  Palaces,  temples,  and  the  great  gates 
which  gave  entrance  to  towns,  have  in  this  way  seen  the 
light ; but  the  humbler  buildings,  the  ordinary  dwellings  of 
the  people,  remain  buried  beneath  the  soil,  unexplored  and 
even  unsought  for.  In  this  entire  default  of  any  actual  speci- 


7 The  chamber  marked  e in  ground-plan  No.  I.  (p.  319)  was  47  ft.  long  by 

31  ft.  wide.  (Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p 352.)  8 Ibid.  p.  357. 


Chap.  VI. 


DOMESTIC  ARCHITECTURE. 


323 


men  of  an  ordinary  Assyrian  house,  we  naturally  turn  to  the 
sculptured  representations  which  are  so  abundant  and  represent 
so  many  different  sorts  of  scenes.  Even  here,  however,  we 
obtain  but  little  light.  The  bulk  of  the  slabs  exhibit  the  wars 
of  the  kings  in  foreign  countries,  and  thus  place  before  us 
foreign  rather  than  Assyrian  architecture.  The  processional 
slabs,  which  are  another  large  class,  contain  rarely  any  building 
at  all,  and,  where  they  furnish  one,  exhibit  to  us  a temple 
rather  than  a house.  The  hunting  scenes,  representing  wilds 
far  from  the  dwellings  of  man,  afford  us,  as  might  be  expected, 
no  help.  Assyrian  buildings,  other  than  temples,  are  thus 
most  rarely  placed  before  us.  In  one  case,  indeed,  we  have  an 
Assyrian  city,  which  a foreign  enemy  is  passing ; but  the  only 


Village  near  Aleppo  (after  Layard). 


edifices  represented  are  the  walls  and  towers  of  the  exterior, 
and  the  temple  (No.  YI.  p.  312)  whose  columns  rest  upon 
lions.  In  one  other  we  seem  to  have  an  unfortified  Assyrian 
village ; 9 and  from  this  single  specimen  we  are  forced  to  form 
our  ideas  of  the  ordinary  character  of  Assyrian  houses. 

It  is  observable  here,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  houses  have 
no  windows,  and  are,  therefore,  probably  lighted  from  the 
roof;  next,  that  the  roofs  are  very  curious,  since,  although  flat 
in  some  instances,  they  consist  more  often  either  of  hemi- 
spherical domes,  such  as  are  still  so  common  in  the  East,  or  of 
steep  and  high  cones,  such  as  are  but  seldom  seen  anywhere. 
Mr.  Layard  finds  a parallel  for  these  last  in  certain  villages  of 
Northern  Syria,  where  all  the  houses  have  conical  roofs,  built 


9 Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh,  PL  1 7. 
in  the  woodcut,  p.  322. 


A portion  of  this  village  is  represented 


Y 2 


324 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


of  mud,  which  present  a very  singular  appearance.1  Both  the 
domes  and  the  cones  of  the  Assyrian  example  have  evidently 
an  opening  at  the  top,  which  may  have  admitted  as  much  light 
into  the  houses  as  was  thought  necessary.  The  doors  are  of 
two  kinds,  square  at  the  top,  and  arched;  they  are  placed 
commonly  towards  the  sides  of  the  houses.  The  houses  them- 
selves seem  to  stand  separate,  though  in  close  juxtaposition. 

The  only  other  buildings  of  the  Assyrians  which  appear  to 
require  some  notice  are  the  fortified  enceintes  of  their  towns. 
The  simplest  of  these  consisted  of  a single  battlemented  wall, 
carried  in  lines  nearly  or  quite  straight  along  the  four  sides 
of  the  place,  pierced  with  gates  and  guarded  at  the  angles,  at 
the  gates,  and  at  intervals  along  the  curtain,  with  projecting 
towers,  raised  not  very  much  higher  than  the  walls,  and  (appa- 
rently) square  in  shape.  In  the  sculptures  we  sometimes  find 


. 

V/W 

IWV 

NKjVv* 

ww/w 

aaaaa/ 

r 

> 

1 

Assyrian  battlemented  wall. 


the  battlemented  wall  repeated  twice  or  thrice  in  lines  placed 
one  above  the  other,  the  intention  being  to  represent  the 
defence  of  a city  by  two  or  three  walls,  such  as  we  have  seen 
existed  on  one  side  of  Nineveh.2 

The  walls  were  often,  if  not  always,  guarded  by  moats. 
Internally  they  were,  in  every  case,  constructed  of  crude  brick ; 
while  externally  it  was  common  to  face  them  with  hewn  stone, 
either  from  top  to  bottom,  or  at  any  rate  to  a certain  height. 
At  Khorsabad  the  stone  revetement  of  one  portion  at  least  of 
the  wall  was  complete ; at  Nimrud  (Calah)  and  at  Nineveh 
itself,  it  was  partial,  being  carried  at  the  former  of  those  places 
only  to  the  height  of  twenty  feet.3  The  masonry  at  Khorsabad 

1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  112.  2 Supra,  pp.  259-261. 

The  representation  is  of  a village  in  the  3 Supra,  p.  258,  note  l. 

neighbourhood  of  Aleppo. 


Chap,  VI. 


FORTIFIED  ENCEINTES. 


325 


was  of  three  kinds.  That  of  the  palace  mound,  which  formed 
a portion  of  the  outer  defence,  was  composed  entirely  of  blocks 
of  stone,  square-hewn  and  of  great  size,  the  length  of  the 
blocks  varying  from  two  to  three  yards,  while  the  width  was 
one  yard,  and  the  height  from  five  to  six  feet.  The  masonry 
was  laid  somewhat  curiously.  The  blocks  (A  A)  were  placed 
alternately  long-wise  and  end-wise  against  the  crude  brick  (B), 
so  as  not  merely  to  lie  against  it,  but  to  penetrate  it  with  their 


Masonry  of  platform  wall,  Khorsabad. 


Section  of  same. 


ends  in  many  places.4  Care  was  also  taken  to  make  the  angles 
especially  strong,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  accompanying  section. 

The  rest  of  the  defences  at  Khorsabad  were  of  an  inferior 
character.  The  wall  of  the  town  had  a width  of  about  forty-five 
feet,  and  its  basement,  to  the  height  of  three  feet,  was  con- 
structed of  stone;  but  the  blocks  were  neither  so  large,  nor 
were  they  hewn  with  the  same  care,  as  those  of  the  palace 
platform.  The  angles,  indeed,  were  of  squared  stone ; but  even 
there  the  blocks  measured  no  more  than  three  feet  in  length 


4 M.  Botta  says : “ Cette  muraille 
etait  construite  en  blocs  de  pierre  cal- 
caire  tres-dure,  venant  des  montagnes 
voisines : ces  blocs  ont  la  forme  de 
parallelopipedes  rectangles  d’une  coupe 
reguliere,  et  sont  disposes  par  assises,  de 
maniere  a presenter  alternativement  au 
dehors  leur  face  la  plus  large  et  une  de 
leurs  extremites ; c’est-'a-dire  que  tous 
etant  poses  de  champ,  l’un  tapisse  le 
massif,  puis  un  et  quelquefois  deux 


autres  continuent  l’assise  par  leurs  ex- 
tremites, la  meme  alternative  se  repetant 
dans  toute  la  longueur  de  celle-ci.  11  en 
resulte  qu’etant  tous  de  meme  longueur, 
ceux  qui  presentent  une  extremite  au 
dehors  depassent  a l’interieur  la  ligne 
des  autres,  et  s’encastrent  dans  le  massif 
de  briques.  Cette  disposition  avait  pour 
but  de  lier  solidement  l’amas  terreux 
interieur  au  revetement  exterieur.”  (Mo- 
nument de  Ninive , vol.  v.  p.  31.) 


326 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


and  a foot  in  height;  the  rest  of  the  masonry  consisted  of 
small  polygonal  stones,  merely  smoothed  on  their  outer  face, 
and  roughly  fitting  together  in  a manner  recalling  the  Cyclo- 
pian  walls  of  Greece  and  Italy.5  They  were  not  united  by  any 
cement.  Above  the  stone  basement  was  a massive  structure 
of  crude  brick,  without  any  facing  either  of  burnt  brick  or  of 
stone. 


Masonry  of  town- wall  (Khorsabad). 


The  third  kind  of  masonry  at  Khorsabad  was  found  outside 
the  main  wall,  and  may  have  formed  either  part  of  the  lining 
of  the  moat  or  a portion  of  a tower,  which  may  have  projected 
in  advance  of  the  wall  at  this  point.  It  was  entirely  of  stone. 
The  lowest  course  was  formed  of  small  and  very  irregular 
polygonal  blocks  roughly  fitted  together  ; above  this  came  two 
courses  of  carefully  squared  stones  more  than  a foot  long,  but 
less  than  six  inches  in  width,  which  were  placed  end- wise,  one 


5 M.  Botta  makes  this  comparison 
(. Monument  de  A inive , 1.  s.  c.).  His  re- 
presentation, however,  differs  in  two 
main  points  from  the  ordinary  Cyclopian 


style:  1.  the  horizontal  course  seems  to 
be  maintained  throughout ; and  2.  the 
stones  do  not  fit  into  each  other  at  all 
closely  or  with  any  exactness. 


Chap.  VI, 


MASONRY. 


327 


over  the  other,  care  being  taken  that  the  joints  of  the  upper 
tier  should  never  coincide  exactly  with  those  of  the  lower. 
Above  these  was  a third  course  of  hewn  stones,  somewhat 
smaller  than  the  others,  which  were  laid  in  the  ordinary 
manner.  Here  the  construction,  as  discovered,  terminated ; but 
it  was  evident,  from  the  debris  of  hewn  stones  at  the  foot  of 
the  wall,  that  originally  the  courses  had  been  continued  to  a 
much  greater  height.6 


In  this  description  of  the  buildings  raised  by  the  Assyrians  it 
has  been  noticed  more  than  once  that  they  were  not  ignorant 
of  the  use  of  the  arch.7  The  old  notion  that  the  round  arch 
was  a discovery  of  the  Roman,  and  the  pointed  of  the  Gothic 
architecture,  has  gradually  faded  away  with  our  ever-increasing 
knowledge  of  the  actual  state  of  the  ancient  world ; 8 and  anti- 
quarians were  not,  perhaps,  very  much  surprised  to  learn,  by 


6 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  v. 
p.  31. 

7 Supra,  pp.  301,  311,  &c. 

8 The  earliest  arches  seem  to  be  those 
of  Egypt,  which  mount  at  least  to  the 
15th  century  before  our  era.  (Wilkin- 
son, Ancient  Egyptians,  1st  series,  iii.  p. 


317  ; Falkener,  Daedalus,  App.  p.  288.) 
The  Babylonian  arches  mentioned  above 
(p.  82)  cannot  be  much  later  than  b.c. 
1300.  The  earliest  known  Assyrian 
arches  would  belong  to  about  the  9th 
century  b.c. 


J28 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


the  discoveries  of  Mr.  Layard,  that  the  Assyrians  knew  and 
used  both  kinds  of  arch  in  their  constructions.  Some  interest, 
r however,  will  probably 


be  felt  to  attach  to 
the  two  questions,  how 
they  formed  their 
arches,  and  to  what 
uses  they  applied  them. 

All  the  Assyrian 
arches  hitherto  dis- 
covered are  of  brick. 
The  round  arches  are 
both  of  the  crude  and 
of  the  kiln-dried  ma- 
terial, and  are  formed, 
in  each  case,  of  bricks 
made  expressly  for 
vaulting,  slightly  con- 
vex at  top  and  slightly 
concave  at  bottom, 
with  one  broader  and 
one  narrower  end.  The 
arches  are  of  the  sim- 
plest kind,  being  ex- 
actly semicircular,  and 
rising  from  plain  per- 
pendicular jambs.  The  greatest  width  which  any  such  arch 
has  been  hitherto  found  to  span  is  about  fifteen  feet.9 

The  only  pointed  arch  actually  discovered  is  of  burnt  brick. 
The  bricks  are  of  the  ordinary  shape,  and  not  intended  for 
vaulting.  They  are  laid  side  by  side  up  to  a certain  point, 
being  bent  into  a slight  arch  by  the  interposition  between  them 
of  thin  wedges  of  mortar.  The  two  sides  of  the  arch  having 
been  in  this  way  carried  up  to  a point  where  the  lower  ex- 
tremities of  the  two  innermost  bricks  nearly  touched,  while  a 


Arched  drain,  North-West  Palace,  Nimrud 
(after  Layard). 


Fergusson,  Handbook  of  Architecture,  yol.  i.  p.  173. 


Chap.  VI.  USE  OF  THE  ARCH.  329 

considerable  space  remained  between  their  upper  extremities, 
instead  of  a key-stone,  or  key-brick  fitting  the  aperture,  ordi- 
nary bricks  were  placed  in  it  longitudinally,  and  so  the  space 
was  filled  in.1 


Another  mode  of  constructing  a pointed  arch  seems  to  be 
intended  in  a bas-relief,  whereof  a representation  has  been 
already  given.2  The  masonry  of  the  arcade  in  No.  V.  (p.  310) 
runs  (it  will  be  seen)  in  horizontal  lines  up  to  the  very  edge  of 
the  arch,  thus  suggesting  a construction  common  in  many  of 
the  early  Greek  arches,  where  the  stones  are  so  cut  away  that 
an  arched  opening  is  formed,  though  the  real  constructive 
principle  of  the  arch  has  no  place  in  such  specimens.3 


Arched  drain,  South-East  Palace,  Nimrud  (after  Layard). 


1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  163. 

2 Supra,  p.  310. 

3 See  Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Greek  and 


Bornan  Antiquities , p.  125,  2nd  edition  ; 
and  Mr.  Falkener’s  Dcedalns,  App.  p.  288. 
Compare  the  representation  overleaf. 


33°  1 THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap,  VI. 

With  regard  to  the  uses  whereto  the  Assyrians  applied  the 
arch,  it  would  certainly  seem,  from  the  evidence  which  we  ■ 

possess,  that  they  neither  em- 
ployed it  as  a great  decorative 
feature,  nor  yet  as  a main  prin- 
ciple of  construction.  So  far  as 
appears,  their  chief  use  of  it  was 
for  doorways  and  gateways.  Not 
only  are  the  town  gates  of  Khor- 
sabad  found  to  have  been  arched 
over,  but  in  the  representations 
of  edifices,  whether  native  or 
foreign,  upon  the  bas-reliefs,  the 
arch  for  doors  is  commoner  than 
the  square  top.  It  is  most  pro- 
^ x bable  that  the  great  palace  gate- 

False  arch  (Greek).  & ® 

ways  were  thus  covered  m,  while 
it  is  certain  that  some  of  the  interior  doorways  in  palaces  had 
rounded  tops.4  Besides  this  use  of  the  arch  for  doors  and  gates, 
the  Assyrians  are  known  to  have  employed  it  for  drains,  aque- 
ducts, and  narrow  chambers  or  galleries. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  Assyrians  applied  the  two 
kinds  of  arches  to  different  purposes,  “thereby  showing  more 
science  and  discrimination  than  we  do  in  our  architectural 
works ; ” that  “ they  used  the  pointed  arch  for  underground 
work,  where  they  feared  great  superincumbent  pressure  on  the 
apex,  and  the  round  arch  above  ground,  where  that  was  not  to 
be  dreaded.”5  But  this  ingenious  theory  is  scarcely  borne  out 
by  the  facts.  The  round  arch  is  employed  underground  in  two 
instances  at  Nirnrud,6  besides  occurring  in  the  basement  story 
of  the  great  tower,7  where  the  superincumbent  weight  must 
have  been  enormous.  And  the  pointed  arch  is  used  above 
ground  for  the  aqueduct  and  hanging  garden  in  the  bas-relief 
(p.  310),  where  the  pressure,  though  considerable,  would  not 


4 Infra,  p.  335.  j 6 Lay ard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  162 

5 Fergusson,  Handbook  of  Architecture,  and  165. 

p.  252,  | 7 Supra,  p.  318. 


Chap.  VI. 


PATTERNED  BRICKS. 


331 


have  been  very  extraordinary.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  to 
be  doubtful  whether  the  Assyrians  were  really  guided  by  any 
constructive  principle  in  their  preference  of  one  form  of  the 
arch  over  the  other. 

In  describing  generally  the  construction  of  the  palaces  and 
other  chief  buildings  of  the  Assyrians,  it  has  been  necessary, 
occasionally  to  refer  to  their  ornamentation ; but  the  subject  is 
far  from  exhausted,  and  will  now  claim,  for  a short  space,  our 
special  attention.  Beyond  a doubt  the  chief  adornment,  both 
of  palaces  and  temples,  consisted  of  the  colossal  bulls  and  lions 
guarding  the  great  gateways,  together  with  the  sculptured  slabs 
wherewith  the  walls,  both  internal  and  external,  were  ordinarily 
covered  to  the  height  of  twelve  or  sometimes  even  of  fifteen 
feet.  These  slabs  and  carved  figures  will  necessarily  be  consi- 
dered in  connexion  with  Assyrian  sculpture,  of  which  they  form 
the  most  important  part.  It  will,  therefore,  only  be  noted  at 
present  that  the  extent  of  wall  covered  with  the  slabs  was,  in 
the  Khorsabad  palace,  at  least  4000  feet,8  or  nearly  four-fifths  of 
a mile,  while  in  each  of  the  Koyunjik  palaces  the  sculptures 
extended  to  considerably  more  than  that  distance. 

The  ornamentation  of  the  walls  above  the  slabs,  both  inter- 
nally and  externally,  was  by  means  of  bricks  painted  on  the 


YJSTM 


Assyrian  patterns  (Nimrud).  # 

exposed  side  and  covered  with  an  enamel.  The  colours  are  for 
the  most  part  somewhat  pale,  but  occasionally  they  possess 
some  brilliancy.  Predominant  among  the  tints  are  a pale  blue, 


8 Fergusson,  Palaces  of  Nineveh,  p.  265. 


332 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap..  VI. 


an  olive  green,  and  a dull  yellow.  White  is  also  largely  used ; 
brown  and  black  are  not  infrequent ; red  is  comparatively  rare.* * * * 9 
The  subjects  represented  are  either  such  scenes  as  occur  upon 


o o o 


Assyrian  patterns  (Nimrud). 

the  sculptured  slabs,  or  else  mere  patterns,  scrolls,  honey- 

suckles, chevrons,  gradines,  guilloches,  &c.  In  the  scenes  some 

attempt  seems  to  be  made  at  representing  objects  in  their 


9 See  Botta’s  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  ii.  Plates  155  and  156  ; Layard’s  Monuments 
of  Nineveh,  1st  series,  Plates  84,  86,  and  87  : 2nd  series,  Plates  53,  54,  and  55. 


Chap.  VI. 


BASES  AND  CAPITALS  OF  COLUMNS. 


333 


natural  colours..  The  size  of  the  figures  is  small;  and  it  is 
difficult  to  imagine  that  any  great  effect  could  have  been 
produced  on  the  beholder  by  such  minute  drawings  placed  at 
such  a height  from  the  ground.  Probably  the  most  effective 
ornamentation  of  this  kind  was  by  means  of  patterns,  which  are 
often  graceful  and  striking  (see  opposite  page). 

It  has  been  observed  that,  so  far  as  the  evidence  at  present 
goes,  the  use  of  the  column  in  Assyrian  architecture  would 


seem  to  have  been  very  rare  indeed.1  In  palaces  we  have  no 
grounds  for  thinking  that  they  were  employed  at  all  excepting 


No.  II. 

Assyrian  capitals. 


in  certain  of  the  interior  doorways,  which,  being  of  unusual 
breadth,  seem  to  have  been  divided  into  three  distinct  portals  by 
means  of  two  pillars  placed  towards  the  sides  of  the  opening.2 * * * 


1 Supra,  p.  303,  note  6.  Mr.  Fox 

Talbot  supposes  that  he  has  found  a 

mention  of  columns  in  a description  given 

of  one  of  his  palaces  by  Sennacherib. 

( Assyrian  Texts  Translated , p.  8.)  But 

the  technical  terms  in  the  Assyrian 
architectural  descriptions  are  of  such 


doubtful  meaning  that  no  theory  can  at 
present  be  rested  upon  them. 

2 Layard,  Nineveh,  and  Babylon,  p.  103  ; 
Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  i.  Plan  II. 
opp.  p.  34,  and  p.  376.  Columns  may 
also  have  been  used  to  support  a covered 
passage  across  a court.  (Supra,  p.  311.) 


334 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  bases  of  these  pillars  were  of  stone,  and  have  been  found 
in  situ  ; their  shafts  and  capitals  had  disappeared,  and  can  only 
be  supplied  by  conjecture.  In  the  temples, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  use  of  the  column  was 
more  frequent.  Its  dimensions  greatly  varied. 
Ordinarily  it  was  too  short  and  thick  for 
beauty,3  while  occasionally  it  had  the  opposite 
defect,  being  too  tall  and  slender.4  Its  base 
was  sometimes  quite  plain,  sometimes  diver- 
sified by  a few  mouldings,  sometimes  curiously 
and  rather  clumsily  rounded  (as  in  No.  II. 
above).  The  shaft  was  occasionally  patterned.5 
The  capital,  in  one  instance  (No.  I.),  approaches 
to  the  Corinthian ; in  another  (No.  II.)  it  re- 
minds us  of  the  Ionic;  but  the  volutes  are 
double,  and  the  upper  ones  are  surmounted  by 
an  awkward-looking  abacus.  A third  (No.  III.) 
is  very  peculiar,  and  to  some  extent  explains  the  origin  of  the 
second.  It  consists  of  two  pairs  of  ibex  horns,  placed  one  over 
the  other.  With  this  may  be  compared  another  (No.  IV.),  the 
most  remarkable  of  all,  where  we  have  first  a single  pair  of 
ibex  horns,  and  then,  at  the  summit,  a complete  figure  of  an 
ibex,  very  graphically  portrayed. 

The  beauty  of  Assyrian  patterning  has  been  already  noticed. 
Patterned  work  is  found  not  only  on  the  enamelled  bricks,  but 
on  stone  pavement  slabs,  and  around  arched  doorways  leading 
from  one  chamber  to  another,  where  the  patterns  are  carved 
with  great  care  and  delicacy  upon  the  alabaster.  The  accom- 
panying specimen  of  a doorway,  which  is  taken  from  an  unpub- 
lished drawing  by  Mr.  Boutcher,  is  very  rich  and  elegant,  though 
it  exhibits  none  but  the  very  commonest  of  the  Assyrian  pat- 
terns. A carving  of  a more  elaborate  type,  and  one  presenting 
even  greater  delicacy  of  workmanship,  has  been  given  in  an 
earlier  portion  of  this  chapter6  as  an  example  of  a patterned 
pavement  slab.  Slabs  of  this  kind  have  been  found  in  many 

3 See  above,  p.  310,  woodcut  No.  V.  4 Ibid.,  woodcut  No.  IV.  5 Ibid. 

6 Page  279. 


Chap.  VI. 


ORNAMENTATION. 


335 


of  the  palaces,  and  well  deserve  the  attention  of  modern 
designers. 

When  the  architecture  of  the  Assyrians  is  compared  with 
that  of  other  nations  possessing  about  the  same  degree  of 
civilisation,  the  impression  that  it  leaves  is  perhaps  somewhat 
disappointing.  Vast  labour  and  skill,  exquisite  finish,  the  most 
extraordinary  elaboration,  were  bestowed  on  edifices  so  essen- 


tially fragile  and  perishable  that  no  Gare  could  have  preserved 
them  for  many  centuries.  Sun-dried  brick,  a material  but  little 
superior  to  the  natural  clay  of  which  it  was  composed,  consti- 
tuted everywhere  the  actual  fabric,  which  was  then  covered 
thinly  and  just  screened  from  view  by  a facing,  seldom  more 
than  a few  inches  in  depth,  of  a more  enduring  and  handsomer 
substance.'  The  tendency  of  the  platform  mounds,  as  soon  as 


336 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


formed,  must  have  been  to  settle  down,  to  bulge  at  the  sides 
and  become  uneven  at  the  top,  to  burst  their  stone  or  brick 
facings  and  precipitate  them  into  the  ditch  below,  at  the  same 
time  disarranging  and  breaking  up  the  brick  pavements  which 
covered  their  surface.  The  weight  of  the  buildings  raised  upon 
the  mounds  must  have  tended  to  hasten  these  catastrophes, 
while  the  unsteadiness  of  their  foundations  and  the  character 
of  their  composition  must  have  soon  had  the  effect  of  throwing 
the  buildings  themselves  into  disorder,  of  loosening  the  slabs 
from  the  walls,  causing  the  enamelled  bricks  to  start  from  their 
places,  the  colossal  bulls  and  lions  to  lean  over,  and  the  roofs 
to  become  shattered  and  fall  in.  The.  fact  that  the  earlier 
palaces  were  to  a great  extent  dismantled  by  the  later  kings  is 
perhaps  to  be  attributed,  not  so  much  to  a barbarous  resolve 
that  they  would  destroy  the  memorials  of  a former  and  a hostile 
dynasty,  as  to  the  circumstance  that  the  more  ancient  buildings 
had  fallen  into  decay  and  ceased  to  be  habitable.  The  rapid 
succession  of  palaces,  the  fact  that,  at  any  rate  from  Sargon 
downwards,  each  monarch  raises  a residence,  or  residences,  for 
himself,  is  yet  more  indicative  of  the  rapid  deterioration  and 
dilapidation  (so  to  speak)  of  the  great  edifices.  Probably  a 
palace  began  to  show  unmistakable  symptoms  of  decay  and  to 
become  an  unpleasant  residence  at  the  end  of  some  twenty-five 
or  thirty  years  from  the  date  of  its  completion  ; effective  repairs 
were,  by  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  almost  impossible  ; and  it 
was  at  once  easier  and  more  to  the  credit  of  the  monarch 
that  he  should  raise  a fresh  platform  and  build  himself  a fresh 
dwelling  than  that  he  should  devote  his  efforts  to  keeping  in 
a comfortable  condition  the  crumbling  habitation  of  his  pre- 
decessor. 

It  is  surprising  that,  under  these  circumstances,  a new  style 
of  architecture  did  not  arise.  The  Assyrians  were  not,  like  the 
Babylonians,  compelled  by  the  nature  of  the  country  in  which 
they  lived  to  use  brick  as  their  chief  building  material.  M. 
Botta  expresses  his  astonishment  at  the  preference  of  brick  to 
stone  exhibited  by  the  builders  of  Khorsabad,  when  the  neigh- 
bourhood abounds  in  rocky  hills  capable  of  furnishing  an  inex- 


Chap.  VI.  CURIOUS  PREFERENCE  OF  BRICK  TO  STONE. 


337 


haustible  supply  of  the  better  material.7  The  limestone  range 
of  the  Jebel  Maklub  is  but  a few  miles  distant,  and  many 
outlying  rocky  elevations  might  have  been  worked  with  still 
greater  facility.  Even  at  Nineveh  itself,  and  at  Calah  or  Nimrud, 
though  the  hills  were  further  removed,  stone  was,  in  reality, 
plentiful.  The  cliffs  a little  above  Koyunjik  are  composed  of 
a “ hard  sandstone,” 8 and  a part  of  the  moat  of  the  town  is 
carried  through  “ compact  silicious  conglomerate.” 9 The  town 
is,  in  fact,  situated  on  “ a spur  of  rock  ” thrown  off  from  the 
Jebel  Maklub,1  which  terminates  at  the  edge  of  the  ravine 
whereby  Nineveh  was  protected  on  the  south.  Calah,  too,  was 
built  on  a number  of  “rocky  undulations,” 2 and  its  western 
wall  skirts  the  edge  of  “ conglomerate  ” cliffs,  which  have  been 
scarped  by  the  hand  of  man.3  A very  tolerable  stone  was  thus 
procurable  on  the  actual  sites  of  these  ancient  cities ; and  if  a 
better  material  had  been  wanted,  it  might  have  been  obtained 
in  any  quantity,  and  of  whatever  quality  was  desired,  from  the 
Zagros  range  and  its  outlying  rocky  barriers.  Transport  could 
scarcely  have  caused  much  difficulty,  as  the  blocks  might  have 
been  brought  from  the  quarries  where  they  were  hewn  to  the 
sites  selected  for  the  cities  by  water-carriage, — a mode  of  trans- 
port well  known  to  the  Assyrians,  as  is  made  evident  to  us  by 
the  bas-reliefs.  (See  the  woodcut  overleaf.) 

If  the  best  possible  building  material  was  thus  plentiful  in 
Assyria,  and  its  conveyance  thus  easy  to  manage,  to  what  are 
we  to  ascribe  the  decided  preference  shown  for  so  inferior  a 
substance  as  brick?  No  considerable  difficulty  can  have  been 


7 Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  v.  p.  64  : 
“ La  maniere  de  batir  les  edifices  est 
d’autant  plus  singuliere,  qu’a  Ninive 
(Khorsabad)  au  moins  la  pierre  etait 
tres-abondante  et  de  bonne  qualite,  et 
que  rien  ne  forgait  les  habitans  a se 
servir  de  briques.”  And  again,  p.  65 : 
“ L’abondance  des  roches,  soit  calcaires, 
soit  gypseuses,  pouvait  leur  fournir  d’ex- 
cellents  mat^riaux  aussi  solides  que  fa- 
ciles  a travailler.” 

8 Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol.  xv. 
p.  317. 

9 Ibid.  p.  311.  (See  above,  p.  259.) 

VOL.  I. 


1 Ibid.  pp.  317  and  323. 

2 Ibid.  p.  347. 

3 Ibid.  p.  346.  It  is  very  remarkable 
that  Mr.  Layard  should  so  entirely  have 
ignored  these  features  of  the  geology  of 
Assyria  in  his  account  of  the  Assyrian 
architecture.  (Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 
vol.  ii.  ch.  ii.  pp.  250-275.)  It  would  be 
concluded  from  his  account  by  a reader 
not  otherwise  informed  on  the  subject, 
that  no  stone  but  the  delicate  alabaster 
used  for  the  bas-reliefs  was  accessible  to 
the  Assyrian  architects. 


Z 


33§ 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YI. 


experienced  in  quarrying  the  stone  of  the  country,  which  is 
seldom  very  hard,  and  which  was,  in  fact,  cut  by  the  Assyrians, 
whenever  they  had  any  sufficient  motive  for  removing  or  mak- 
ing use  of  it.4  One  answer  only  can  be  reasonably  given  to 
the  question.  The  Assyrians  had  learnt  a certain  style  of 
architecture  in  the  alluvial  Babylonia,  and  having  brought 
it  with  them  into  a country  far  less  fitted  for  it,  maintained  it 
from  habit,  notwithstanding  its  unsuitableness.5  In  some  few 


Water-transport  of  stone  for  building  (Koyunjik). 


•respects,  indeed,  they  made  a slight  change.  The  abundance 
of  stone  in  the  country  induced  them  to  substitute  it  in  several 
places  where  in  Babylonia  it  was  necessary  to  use  burnt  brick, 
as  in  the  facings  of  platforms  and  of  temples,  in  dams  across 
streams,  in  pavements  sometimes,  and  universally  in  the  orna- 
mentation of  the  lower  portions  of  palace  and  temple  walls. 


4 At  Nimrud  the  western  cliff  is 
“ artificially  scarped  ” to  make  it  a se- 
cure defence.  ( Journal  of  As.  Soc.  vol. 
xv.  p.  346.)  At  Negoub  the  rock  is  tun- 
nelled for  some  distance,  and  for  a longer 
space  “ chiselled  through  a hard  sand- 
stone and  surface-conglomerate  to  a 
depth  perhaps  of  forty  feet.”  (Ibid.  p. 

311.)  At  Nineveh  the  moat  is  carried 
“ for  upwards  of  two  miles,  with  a 
breadth  of  200  feet,  through  a peculiarly 
hard  and  compact  silicious  conglome- 


rate.” (Ibid.  p.  320.)  A very  hard  ba- 
salt was  used  in  the  palace  temple  at 
Khorsabad.  (Supra,  p.  296.) 

5 M.  Botta  winds  up  his  remarks  on 
the  strangeness  of  the  Assyrian  archi- 
tecture occurring  where  it  does,  by  sug- 
gesting “ que  les  monumens  de  Ninive 
sont  posterieurs  a ceux  de  Babylone,  et 
que  c’est  dans  ce  dernier  pays  qu’il  faut 
chercher  l’origine  de  l’art  Assyrien  ” 
(p.  65). 


Chap.  VI. 


ASSYRIAN  STATUES. 


339 


But  otherwise  they  remained  faithful  to  their  architectural  tra- 
ditions, and  raised  in  the  comparatively  hilly  Assyria  the  exact 
type  of  building  which  nature  and  necessity  had  led  them  to 
invent  and  use  in  the  flat  and  stoneless  alluvium  where  they 
had  had  their  primitive  abode.  As  platforms  were  required 
both  for  security  and  for  comfort  in  the  lower  region,  they  re- 
tained them,  instead  of  choosing  natural  elevations,  in  the 
upper  one.  As  clay  was  the  only  possible  material  in  the  one 
place,  clay  was  still  employed,  notwithstanding  the  abundance 
of  stone,  in  the  other.  Being 
devoid  of  any  great  inventive 
genius,  the  Assyrians  found  it 
easier  to  maintain  and  slightly 
modify  a system  with  which 
they  had  been  familiar  in  their 
original  country  than  to  devise 
a new  one  more  adapted  to  the 
land  of  their  adoption. 

Next  to  the  architecture  of 
the  Assyrians,  their  mimetic  art 
seems  to  deserve  attention. 

Though  the  representations  in 
the  works  of  Layard  and  Botta, 
combined  with  the  presence  of 
so  many  specimens  in  the  great 
National  Museums  of  London  and  Paris,  have  produced  a 
general  familiarity  with  the  subject,  still,  as  a connected  view 
of  it  in  its  several  stages  and  branches  is  up  to  the  present 
time  a desideratum  in  our  literature,1  it  may  not  be  superfluous 
here  to  attempt  a brief  account  of  the  different  classes  into 
which  their  productions  in  this  kind  of  art  fall,  and  the  different 
eras  and  styles  under  which  they  naturally  range  themselves. 


Assyrian  statue  (Kileh-Sherghat). 


1 Mr.  Fergusson,  who  has  treated  of 
the  architecture  of  the  Assyrians  with 
so  much  knowledge  and  ingenuity,  says 
but  little  on  the  subject  of  their  sculp- 
ture. Mr.  Layard ’s  review  of  the  sub- 
ject in  his  first  work  (Book  u.  ch.  ii.)  is 


the  best  which  at  present  exists ; hut  it 
is  of  necessity  incomplete,  owing  to  the 
early  period  in  the  history  of  Assyrian 
discovery  at  which  it  was  composed. 
Its  views  are  also  occasionally  open  to 
dispute. 

z 2 


340  the  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  VI. 

Assyrian  mimetic  art  consists  of  statues,  bas-reliefs,  metal- 
castings,  carvings  in  ivory,  statuettes  in  clay,  enamellings  on 
brick,  and  intaglios  on  stones  and  gems. 

Assyrian  statues  are  comparatively  rare,  and,  when  they 
occur,  are  among  the  least  satisfactory  of  this  people’s  pro- 
ductions. They  are  coarse,  clumsy, 
purely  formal  in  their  design,  and 
generally  characterised  by  an  undue 
flatness,  or  want  of  breadth  in  the 
side  view,  as  if  they  were  only  in- 
tended to  be  seen  directly  in  front. 
Sometimes,  however,  this  defect  is 
not  apparent.  A sitting  statue  in 
black  basalt,  of  the  size  of  life,  repre- 
senting an  early  king,  which  Mr. 
Layard  discovered  atKileh-Sherghat,2 
and  which  is  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  may  be  instanced  as  quite 
free  from  this  disproportion.  It  is 
very  observable,  however,  in  another 
of  the  royal  statues  recently  reco- 
vered,3 as  it  is  also  in  the  monolith 
bulls  and  lions  universally.  Other- 
wise, the  proportions  of  the  figures 
are  commonly  correct.  They  bear  a 
resemblance  to  the  archaic  Greek, 
especially  to  that  form  of  it  which 
we  find  in  the  sculptures  from  Bran- 
chidae.  They  have  just  the  same 
rudeness,  heaviness,  and  stiff  formality. 
It  is  difficult  to  judge  of  their  exe- 
statue  of  Sardanapaius  I.  cution,  as  they  have  mostly  suffered 
(from  Nimrud).  great  injury  from  the  hand  of  man, 

or  from  the  weather ; but  the  royal  statue  here  represented, 
which  is  in  better  preservation  than  any  other  Assyrian  work 


2 See  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii.  pp.  51,  52. 

2 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  361.  This  statue  is  also  in  the  British  Museum. 


Chap.  VI. 


CLAY  STATUETTES. 


341 


“ in  the  round  ” that  has  come  down  to  us,  exhibits  a rather  high 
finish.  It  is  smaller  than  life,  being  about  three  and  a half 
feet  high : the  features  are  majestic,  and  well  marked ; the  hair 
and  beard  are  elaborately  curled ; the  arms  and  hands  are  well 
shaped,  and  finished  with  care.  The  dress  is  fringed  elabo- 
rately, and  descends  to  the  ground,  concealing  all  the  lower 
part  of  the  figure.  The  only  statues  recovered  besides  these 
are  two  of  the  god  Nebo,  brought  from  Nimrud,4  a mutilated 
one  of  Ishtar,  or  Astarte,  found  at  Koyunjik,  and  a tolerably 
perfect  one  of  Sargon,  which  was  discovered  at  Idalium,  in  the 
island  of  Cyprus.5 


Clay  statuettes  of  the  god  Nebo  (?). 


The  clay  statuettes  of  the  Assyrians  possess  even  less  artistic 
merit  than  their  statues.  They  are  chiefly  images  of  gods  or 
genii,  and  have  most  commonly  something  grotesque  in  their 
appearance.  Among  the  most  usual  are  figures  which  represent 
either  Mylitta  (Beltis),  or  Ishtar.6  They  are  made  in  a fine 
terra  cotta,  which  has  turned  of  a pale  red  in  baking,  and  are 
coloured  with  a cretaceous  coating,  so  as  greatly  to  resemble 
Greek  pottery.7  Another  type  is  that  of  an  old  man,  bearded, 
and  with  hands  clasped,  which  we  may  perhaps  identify  with 


4  One  of  these  is  figured  above,  p.  141. 

The  actual  statues  are  both  in  the  British 

Museum. 


5 This  statue  is  in  the  Berlin  Museum. 

6 See  above,  p.  140. 

7 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery , vol.  i.  p.  124. 


342 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


Nebo,  the  Assyrian  Mercury,  since  his  statues  in  the  British 
Museum  have  a somewhat  similar  character.  Other  forms  are 
the  fish-god  Nin,  or  Nin-ip ; and  the  deities,  not  yet  identified, 
which  were  found  by  M.  Botta  under  the  pavement-bricks 
at  Khorsabad.  These 
specimens  have  the 
formal  character  of 
the  statues,  and  are 
even  more  rudely 
shaped.  Other  ex- 
amples, which  carry 
the  grotesque  to  an 
excess,  appear  to  have 
been  designed  with 
greater  spirit  and 
freedom.  Animal  and 
hum  an  forms  are  some- 
times intermixed  in 
them ; and  while  it 
cannot  be  denied  that 
they  are  rude  and 
coarse,  it  must  be  al- 
lowed on  the  other 
hand,  that  they  pos- 
sess plenty  of  vigour. 

M.  Botta  has  engraved 
several  specimens,8  in- 
cluding two  which  have  the  hind  legs  and  tail  of  a bull,  with  a 
human  neck  and  arms,  the  head  bearing  the  usual  horned  cap. 

Small  figures  of  animals  in  terra  cotta  have  also  been  found. 
They  consist  chiefly  of  dogs  and  ducks.  A representation  of 
each  has  been  given  in  the  chapter  on  the  productions  of 
Assyria.9  The  dogs  discovered  are  made  of  a coarse  clay,  and 
seem  to  have  been  originally  painted.10  They  are  not  wanting 


Clay  statuette  of 
the  Fish-god. 


Clay  statuette  from  Khorsabad 
(after  Botta). 


8 Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  ii.  plates 
152  to  155. 

9 Supra,  p.  234  (No.  I.)  and  p.  235. 

10  According  to  Mr.  Birch,  the  colours  I 


used  were  “ blue,  red,  and  black,”  and  they 
were  “ laid  on  in  a paste  ” (Ancient  Pot- 
tery, vol.  i.  p.  125).  At  present  the  traces 
of  colour  on  the  dogs  are  very  faint. 


Chap.  VI. 


BAS-RELIEFS. 


343 


in  spirit ; but  it  detracts  from  their  merit  that  the  limbs  are 
merely  in  relief,  the  whole  space  below  the  belly  of  the  animal 
being  filled  up  with  a mass  of  clay  for  the  sake  of  greater 
strength.  The  ducks  are  of  a fine  yellow  material,  and  repre- 
sent the  bird  asleep,  with  its  head  lying  along  its  back. 

Of  all  the  Assyrian  works  of  art  which  have  come  down  to 
us  by  far  the  most  important  are  the  bas-reliefs.  It  is  here 
especially,  if  not  solely,  that  we  can  trace  progress  in  style; 
and  it  is  here  alone  that  we  see  the  real  artistic  genius  of  the 
people.  What  sculpture  in  its  full  form,  or  in  the  slightly 
modified  form  of  very  high  relief,  was  to  the  Greeks,  what 
painting  has  been  to  modern  European  nations  since  the  time 
of  Cimabue,  that  low  relief  was  to  the  Assyrians — the  practical 
mode  in  which  artistic  power  found  vent  among  them.  They 
used  it  for  almost  every  purpose  to  which  mimetic  art  is  appli- 
cable ; to  express  their  religious  feelings  and  ideas,  to  glorify 
their  kings,  to  hand  down  to  posterity  the  nation’s  history  and 
its  deeds  of  prowess,  to  depict  home  scenes  and  domestic  occu- 
pations, to  represent  landscape  and  architecture,  to  imitate 
animal  and  vegetable  forms,  even  to  illustrate  the  mechanical 
methods  which  they  employed  in  the  construction  of  those  vast 
architectural  works,  of  which  the  reliefs  were  the  principal 
ornamentation.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  we  know  the 
Assyrians,  not  merely  artistically,  but  historically  and  ethno- 
logically,  chiefly  through  their  bas-reliefs,  which  seem  to  repre- 
sent to  us  almost  the  entire  life  of  the  people. 

The  reliefs  may  be  divided  under  five  principal  heads : — 1. 
War  scenes,  including  battles,  sieges,  devastations  of  an  enemy’s 
country,  naval  expeditions,  and  triumphant  returns  from  foreign 
war,  with  the  trophies  and  fruits  of  victory ; 2.  Religious 
scenes,  either  mythical  or  real;  3.  Processions,  generally  of 
tribute-bearers,  bringing  the  produce  of  their  several  countries 
to  the  Great  King ; 4.  Hunting  and  sporting  scenes,  including 
the  chase  of  savage  animals,  and  of  animals  sought  for  food,  the 
spreading  of  nets,  the  shooting  of  birds,  and  the  like ; and  5.  Scenes 
of  ordinary  life,  as  those  representing  the  transport  and  erection 
, of  colossal  bulls,  landscapes,  temples,  interiors,  gardens,  &c. 


344 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Ciiap.  VI. 


The  earliest,  art  is  that  of  the  most  ancient  palaces  at  Nimrnd. 
It  belongs  to  the  latter  part  of  the  tenth  century  before  our 
era ; the  time  of  Asa  in  Judaea,  of  Omri  and  Ahab  in  Samaria, 
and  of  the  Sheshonks  in  Egypt.  It  is  characterised  by  much 
spirit  and  variety  in  the  design,  by  strength  and  firmness,  com- 
bined with  a good  deal  of  heaviness,  in  the  execution,  by  an 
entire  contempt  for  perspective,  and  by  the  rigid  preservation 
in  almost  every  case,  both  human  and  animal,  of  the  exact 
profile  both  of  figure  and  face.1  Of  the  illustrations  already 
given  in  the  present  volume  a considerable  number  belong  to 
this  period.  The  heads  on  page  237,  and  the  figures  on  page 
242,  represent  the  ordinary  appearance  of  the  men,2  while  animal 


forms  of  the  time  will  be  found  in  the  lion  on  page  220,  the 
ibex  on  page  221,  the  gazelle  on  page  224,  the  horse  on  page 
232,  and  the  horse  and  wild  bull  on  page  227.  It  will  be  seen 
upon  reference  that  the  animal  are  very  much  superior  to  the 
human  forms,  a characteristic  which  is  not,  however,  peculiar 
to  the  style  of  this  period,  but  belongs  to  all  Assyrian  art,  from 
its  earliest  to  its  latest  stage.  A favourable  specimen  of  the 
style  will  be  found  in  the  lion  hunt  which  Mr.  Layard  has 


1 The  only  exceptions  are  believed  to 
be  a few  instances  of  lions’  heads,  and 

one  human  head  on  the  ornamentation 
of  dresses  at  Nimrud.  (See  Layard’s 
Monuments , 1st  Series,  Plates  9 and  50,  I 


fig.  7.) 

2 The  woodcut  on  page  242  is  also 
a good  specimen  of  the  defective  per- 
spective of  the  Assyrian  artists. 


Chap.  VI.  CHARACTER  OF  THE  EARLIEST  BAS-RELIEFS.  345 


engraved  in  his  * Monuments,’3  and  of  which  he  himself  ob- 
serves, that  it  is  “ one  of  the  finest  specimens  hitherto  discovered 
of  Assyrian  sculpture.”4  The  composition  is  at  once  simple 
and  effective.  The  king  forms  the  principal  object  nearly  in 
the  centre  of  the  picture,  and  by  the  superior  height  of  his 
conical  head-dress,  and  the.  position  of  the  two  arrows  which  he 
holds  in  the  hand  that  draws  the  bowstring,  dominates  over  the 
entire  composition.  As  he  turns  round  to  shoot  down  at  the 
lion  which  assails  him  from  behind,  his  body  is  naturally  and 
gracefully  bent,  while  his  charioteer'  being  engaged  in  urging 
his  horses  forward,  leans  naturally  in  the  opposite  direction, 
thus  contrasting  with  the  main  figure  and  balancing  it.  The 
lion  immediately  behind  the  chariot  is  outlined  with  great  spirit 
and  freedom  ; his  head  is  masterly  ; the  fillings  up  of  the  body, 
however,  have  too  much  conventionality.  As  he  rises  to  attack 
the  monarch,  he  conducts  the  eye  up  to  the  main  figure,  while 
at  the  same  time  by  this  attitude  his  principal  lines  form  a 
pleasing  contrast  to  the  predominant  perpendicular  and  hori- 
zontal lines  of  the  general  composition.  The  dead  lion  in  front 
of  the  chariot  balances  the  living  one  behind  it,  and,  with  its 
crouching  attitude,  and  drooping  head  and  tail,  contrasts  admir- 
ably with  the  upreared  form  of  its  fellow.  Two  attendants, 
armed  with  sword  and  shield,  following  behind  the  living  lion, 
serve  to  balance  the  horses  drawing  the  chariot,  without  ren- 
dering the  composition  too  symmetrical.  The  horses  themselves 
are  the  weakest  part  of  the  picture ; the  fore-legs  are  stiff  and 
too  slight,  and  the  heads  possess  little  spirit. 

It  is  seldom  that  designs  of  this  early  period  can  boast  nearly 
so  much  merit.  The  religious  and  processional  pieces  are  stiff 
in  the  extreme ; 5 the  battle  scenes  are  overcrowded  and  con- 
fused ; 6 the  hunting  scenes  are  superior  to  these,7  but  in  general 


3 Monuments  of  Nineveh,  1st  Series, 

PI.  10. 

4 Ibid.  p.  3. 

5 See  ibid.  Plates  12,  23,  24,  &c. 

6 See  particularly,  in  the  same  work, 
Plates  13,  14,  19,  28,  and  29. 

7 The  hunt  of  the  wild  bull  (Plate  11), 
a pendant  to  the  hunt  of  the  lion  above 


described,  resembles  it  in  many  respects, 
but  on  the  whole  is  decidedly  inferior. 
Several  hunting  scenes,  possessing  con- 
siderable merit,  are  represented  on  the 
embroidery  of  dresses.  (See  PI.  44,  fig. 
6 ; PI.  48,  figs.  4 and  6 ; PI.  49,  figs.  3 
and  4 ; and  PI.  50,  fig.  1.) 


346 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


they  too  fall  far  below  the  level  of  the  above-described  com- 
position. 

The  best  drawing  of  this  period  is  found  in  the  figures  forming 
the  patterns  or  embroidery  of  dresses.  The  gazelle,  of  which 


a representation  has  been  given  (page  224),  the  ibex  (page  221), 
the  horse  (page  232),  and  the  horseman  hunting  the  wild  bull 
(page  227),  are  from  ornamental  work  of  this  kind.  They  are 


Chap.  VI.  CHARACTER  OF  THE  EARLIEST  BAS-RELIEFS.  347 


favourable  specimens  perhaps ; but,  still,  they  are  representa- 
tives of  a considerable  class.  Some  examples  even  exceed  these 
in  the  freedom  of  their 
outline,  and  the  vigorous 
action  which  they  depict, 
as,  for  instance,  the  man 
seizing  a wild  bull  by  the 
horn  and  fore-leg,  which 
is  figured  page  346.  In 
general,  however,  there  is 
a tendency  in  these  early 
drawings  to  the  grotesque. 

Lions  and  bulls  appear 
in  absurd  attitudes;  hawk-  Death  ofa  wild  bul1  (Nimrud>- 

headed  figures  in  petticoats  threaten  human-headed  lions  with 
a mace  or  a strap,  sometimes  holding  them  by  a paw,  some- 
times grasping  them 
round  the  middle  of  the 
tail ; priests  hold  up 
ibexes  at  arm’s  length 
by  one  of  their  hind- 
legs, so  that  their  heads 
trail  upon  the  ground ; 
griffins  claw  after  ante- 
lopes, or  antelopes  toy 
with  winged  lions;  even 
in  the  hunting  scenes, 
which  are  less  simply 
ludicrous,  there  seems  to 

, , . . King  killing  a lion  (Nimrud). 

be  an  occasional  striving 

after  strange  and  laughable  attitudes,  as  when  a stricken  bull 
tumbles  upon  his  head,  with  his  tail  tossed  straight  in  the  air, 
or  when  a lion  receives  his  death- wound  with  arms  outspread, 
and  mouth  widely  agape. 

The  second  period  of  Assyrian  mimetic  art  extends  from  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighth  to  nearly  the  middle  of  the  seventh 
century  before  our  era  ; or,  more  exactly,  from  about  B.c.  721,  to 


348 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


B.c.  667.  It  belongs  to  the  reigns  of  the  three  consecutive  kings 
— Sargon,  Sennacherib,  and  Esar-haddon,  who  were  contem- 
porary with  Hezekiah  and  Manasseh  in  Judaea,  and  with  the  Sa- 
bacos  (Shebeks)  and  Tirhakah  (Tehrak)  in  Egypt.  The  sources 
which  chiefly  illustrate  this  period  are  the  magnificent  series  of 
engravings  published  by  MM.  Elandin  and  Botta,1  together  with 
the  originals  of  a certain  portion  of  them  in  the  Louvre ; the 
engravings  in  Mr.  Layard’s  first  folio  work,  from  pi.  68  to  pi.  83 ; 
those  in  his  second  folio  work  from  pi.  7 to  44,  and  from  pi.  50 
to  56 ; the  originals  of  many  of  these  in  the  British  Museum ; 
several  monuments  procured  for  the  British  Museum  by  Mr. 
Loftus;  and  a series  of  unpublished  drawings  by  Mr.  Boutcher 
in  the  same  great  national  collection.2 

The  most  obvious  characteristic  of  this  period,  when  we 
compare  it  with  the  preceding  one,  is  the  advance  which  the 


artists  have  made  in  their  vegetable  forms,  and  the  pre-Ra- 
phaelite  accuracy  which  they  affect  in  all  the  accessories  of 
their  representations.  In  the  bas-reliefs  of  the  first  period  we 
have,  for  the  most  part,  no  backgrounds.  Figures  alone  occupy 


1 Monument  de  Ninive,  Paris,  1849. 
The  descriptive  letter  - press  is  by  M. 

Botta.  The  drawings  were  executed  by 
M.  Flandin,  and  engraved  by  MM.  Sellier, 


Peronard,  Oury,  and  others. 

2 These  drawings  have  been  kindly 
placed  at  my  disposal  by  Mr.  Vaux,  of 
the  Antiquities’  Department. 


Ci-iap.  VI. 


BAS-RELIEFS  OF  THE  SECOND  PERIOD. 


349 


the  slabs,  or  figures  and  buildings.  In  some  few  instances 
water  is  represented  in  a very  rude  fashion ; 3 and  once  or  twice 
only  do  we  meet  with 
trees,4  which,  when 
they  occur,  are  of  the 
poorest  and  strangest 
character  (see  page 
348).  In  the  second 
period,  on  the  con- 
trary, back  - grounds 
are  the  rule,  and  slabs 
without  them  form  the 
exception.  The  vege- 
table forms  are  abund- 
ant and  varied,  though 
still  somewhat  too  con- 
ventional. Date-palms, 
firs,  and  vines  are  de- 
lineated with  skill  and 
spirit;  other  varieties 
are  more  difficult  to 
recognise.  The  cha- 
racter of  the  countries 
through  which  armies 
march  is  almost  always 
given5 — their  streams, 
lakes,  and  rivers,  their 
hills  and  mountains, 
their  trees,  and  in  the 
case  of  marshy  dis- 
tricts, their  tall  reeds. 

At  the  same  time,  ani- 
mals in  the  wild  state  are  freely  introduced  without  their  having 
any  bearing  on  the  general  subject  of  the  picture.  The  water 


3 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  Plates  15,  16,  33,  and  39  b. 

4 Ibid.  Plates  13,  14,  and  33. 

5 This  is  particularly  the  case  in  the 


sculptures  of  Sennacherib.  In  those  of 
Sargon,  backgrounds  are  still  rather  the 
exception  than  the  rule. 


350 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


teems  with  fish,  and,  where  the  sea  is  represented,  with  crabs, 
turtle,  star-fish,  sea  serpents,  and  other  monsters.6  The  woods 
are  alive  with  birds ; wild  swine  and  stags  people  the  marshes.7 
Nature  is  evidently  more  and  more  studied ; and  the  artist 
takes  a delight  in  adorning  the  scenes  of  violence,  which  he 
is  forced  to  depict,  with  quiet  touches  of  a gentle  character — 
rustics  fishing  or  irrigating  their  grounds,  fish  disporting  them- 
selves, birds  flying  from  tree  to  tree,  or  watching  the  callow 
young  which  look  up  to  them  from  the  nest  for  protection.8 

In  regard  to  human  forms,  no  great  advance  marks  this 
period.  A larger  variety  in  their  attitudes  is  indeed  to  be  traced, 


Groom  and  horses,  Khorsabad  (after  Layard). 


and  a greater  energy  and  life  appears  in  most  of  the  figures ; 
but  there  is  still  much  the  same  heaviness  of  outline,  the  same 
over-muscularity,  and  the  same  general  clumsiness  and  want  of 
grace.  Animal  forms  show  a much  more  considerable  improve- 
ment. Horses  are  excellently  portrayed,  the  attitudes  being 
varied,  and  the  heads  especially  delineated  with  great  spirit  (see 


8 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  i. 
Plates  32  to  34;  Layard,  Monuments  of 
Nineveh,  1st  Series,  PI.  71. 


7 See  the  representations  on  pages  40 
and  225. 

8 Mon.  of  Nineveh , 2nd  Series,  PI.  40. 


Chap.  VI. 


EXCELLENCE  OF  THE  ANIMAL  FORMS. 


351 


opposite).  Mules  and  camels  are  well  expressed,9  but  have 
scarcely  the  vigour  of  the  horses.  Horned  cattle,  as  oxen,  both 
with  and  without  humps, 
goats,  and  sheep  are  very 
skilfully  treated,  being  repre- 
sented with  much  character, 
in  natural  yet  varied  atti- 
tudes, and  often  admirably 
grouped. 

The  composition  during 

this  period  is  more  compli-  / . . /"I  y ^ 'YC'  M^\\  \ 

cated  and  more  ambitious  \ ))//  v 

than  during  the  preceding 
one;  but  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  it  is  so  effec- 
tive. No  single  scene  of  the  time  can  compare  for  grandeur 
with  the  lion-hunt  above  described.10  The  battles  and  sieges 


Assyrian  oxen  (Koyunjik). 


Assyrian  oxen  (Koyunjik). 

are  spirited,  but  want  unity ; the  hunting-scenes  are  compara- 
tively tame ; 11  the  representations  of  the  transport  of  colossal 


9 See  above,  pp.  230,  233. 

10  Pages  344,  345. 

11  No  lion-hunt  nor  bull-hunt  has  been 


found  in  the  sculptures  of  this  time. 
The  chase  seems  confined  to  hares,  ga- 
zelles, and  birds. 


352 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


bulls  possess  more  interest  than  artistic  merit.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  manipulation  is  decidedly  superior ; the  relief  is 
higher,  the  outline  is  more  flowing,  the  finish  of  the  features 


more  delicate.  What  is  lost  in  grandeur  of  composition  is,  on 
the  whole,  more  than  made  up  by  variety,  naturalness,  improved 
handling,  and  higher  finish. 

The  highest  perfection  of  Assyrian  art  is  in  the  third  period, 
which  extends  from  b.c.  667  to  about  B.c.  640.  It  synchronises 
with  the  reign  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  the  son  of  Esar-haddon,  who 
appears  to  have  been  contemporary  with  Gyges  in  Lydia,1  and 
with  Psammetichus  in  Egypt.  The  characteristics  of  the  time 
are  a less  conventional  type  in  the  vegetable  forms,  a wonderful 
freedom,  spirit,  and  variety  in  the  forms  of  animals,  extreme 
minuteness  and  finish  in  the  human  figures,  and  a delicacy  in 
the  handling  considerably  beyond  that  of  even  the  second  or 
middle  period.  The  sources  illustrative  of  this  stage  of  the  art 
consist  of  the  plates  in  Mr.  Layard’s  ‘ Second  Series  of  Monu- 
ments/ from  pi.  45  to  49,  the  originals  of  these  in  the  British 
Museum,  the  noble  series  of  slabs  obtained  by  Mr.  Loftus  from 
the  northern  palace  of  Eoyunjik,  and  of  the  drawings  made 
from  them2  and  from  other  slabs,  which  were  in  a more  da- 
maged condition,  by  Mr.  Boutcher,  who  accompanied  Mr.  Loftus 
in  the  capacity  of  artist. 

Vegetable  forms  are,  on  the  whole,  somewhat  rare.  The 
artists  have  relinquished  the  design  of  representing  scenes  with 


1 See  below,  chapter  ix.  There  is  reason 
to  believe  that  the  Eusebian  date  for 
Gyges  (b.c.  698  to  b.c.  662)  is  more  cor- 
rect than  the  Herodotean — b.c.  724  to 
B.c.  686. 

2 These  drawings,  which  are  in  the 
British  Museum,  having  been  taken 


when  the  slabs  were  freshly  exhumed, 
often  preserve  features  which  have  dis- 
appeared during  the  transport  of  the 
originals  and  their  preparation  for  exhi- 
bition. By  the  kindness  of  Mr.  Vaux, 
the  free  use  of  the  drawings  has  been 
allowed  to  the  author  of  the  present  work. 


Chap.  VI. 


BAS-EELIEFS  OF  THE  THIRD  PERIOD. 


353 


perfect  truthfulness,  and  have  recurred  as  a general  rule,  to  the 
plain  backgrounds  of  the  first  period.  This  is  particularly  the 
case  in  the  hunting-scenes,  which  are  seldom  accompanied  by 
any  landscape  whatsoever.  In  processional  and  military  scenes 


Vine  trained  on  a fir  (?),  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik. 

landscape  is  introduced,  but  sparingly ; the  forms,  for  the  most 
part,  resembling  those  of  the  second  period.3  Now  and  then, 


3 See  the  illustration  (No.  V.)  on  page  310,  which  belongs  to  this  time ; and 
compare  the  trees  with  those  represented,  supra,  p.  349. 

VOL.  I.  2 A 


354 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


however,  in  such  scenes  the  landscape  lias  been  made  the  object 
of  special  attention,  becoming  the  prominent  part,  while  the 
human  figures  are  accessories.  It  is  here  that  an  advance  in 
art  is  particularly  discernible.  In  one  set  of  slabs  a garden 
seems  to  be  represented.  Vines  are  trained  upon  trees,  which 
may  be  either  firs  or  cypresses,  winding  elegantly  around  their 
stems,  and  on  either  side  letting  fall  their  pendant  branches 
laden  with  fruit.  Leaves,  branches,  and  tendrils  are  delineated 

with  equal  truth  and  finish, 
a most  pleasing  and  grace- 
ful effect  being  thereby  pro- 
duced. Irregularly  among 
the  trees  occur  groups  of 
lilies,  some  in  bud,  some 
in  full  blow,  all  natural, 
graceful,  and  spirited. 

It  is  difficult  to  do  justice 
to  the  animal  delineation 
of  this  period,  without  re- 
producing before  the  eye 
of  the  reader  the  entire 
series  of  reliefs  and  draw- 
ings which  belong  to  it. 
It  is  the  infinite  variety  in 
the  attitudes,  even  more 
than  the  truth  and  natural- 
ness of  any  particular  spe- 
t . * . , , _T  _ ...  cimens,  that  impresses  us 

as  we  contemplate  the 
series.  Lions,  wild  asses,  dogs,  deer,  wild  goats,  horses  are 
represented  in  profusion ; and  we  scarcely  find  a single  form 
which  is  repeated.  Some  specimens  have  been  already  given, 
as  the  hunted  stag  and  hind  on  page  224,  and  the  startled  wild 
ass  on  page  223.  Others  will  occur  among  the  illustrations  of 
the  next  chapter.  For  the  present  it  may  suffice  to  draw  atten- 
tion to  the  spirit  of  the  two  falling  asses  in  the  subjoined  wood- 
cut  (No.  I.),  and  of  the  crouching  lion  in  the  woodcut  No.  II. 
(opposite) ; to  the  life-like  force  of  both  ass  and  hounds  in  the 


Chap.  VI. 


VEGETABLE  AND  ANIMAL  FORMS. 


• 355“ 


representation  No.  III.  (overleaf),  and  here  particularly  to 
the  bold  drawing  of  one  of 
the  dog’s  heads  in  full,  instead 
of  in  profile — a novelty  now 
first  occurring  in  the  bas-reliefs. 

As  instances  of  still  bolder 
attempts  at  unusual  attitudes, 
and  at  the  same  time  of  a cer- 
tain amount  of  fore-shortening, 
two  further  illustrations  are 
appended.  The  sorely- wounded 
lion  in  the  first  (p.  357)  turns 
his  head  piteously  towards  the 
cruel  shaft,  while  he  totters 
to  his  fall,  his  limbs  failing 
him,  and  his  eyes  beginning 
to  close.  The  more  slightly- 
stricken  king  of  beasts  in  the 
second  (p.  358),  urged  to  fury 
by  the  smart  of  his  wound, 
rushes  at  the  chariot  whence 
the  shaft  was  sped,  and  in  his 
mad  agony  springs  upon  a 
wheel,  clutches  it  with  his  two 
fore-paws,  and  frantically  grinds 
it  between  his  teeth.  Assyrian 
art,  so  far  as  it  is  as  yet  known, 
has  no  finer  specimen  of  ani- 
mal drawing  than  this  head, 
which  may  challenge  comparison  with  anything  of  the  kind 
that  either  classic  or  modern  art  has  produced. 


No.  II.  Lion  about  to  spring,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik. 

2 a 2 


No.  I.  Death  of  two  wild  asses,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik. 


356  • 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


As  a specimen  at  once  of  animal  vigour  and  of  the  delicacy 
and  finish  of  the  workmanship  in  the  human  forms  of  the  time, 
a bas-relief  of  the  king  receiving  the  spring  of  a lion,  and  shoot- 
ing an  arrow  into  his  mouth,  while  a second  lion  advances  at  a 

rapid  pace  a little  behind 
the  first,  may  be  adduced 
(see  page  359).  The  bold- 
ness of  the  composition, 
which  represents  the  first 
lion  actually  in  mid-air,  is 
remarkable ; the  drawing  of 
the  brute’s  fore-paws,  ex- 
panded to  seize  his  intended 
prey,  is  life-like  and  very 
spirited,  while  the  head  is 
massive  and  full  of  vigour. 
There  is  something  noble 
in  the  calmness  of  the  mo- 
narch contrasted  with  the 
comparative  eagerness  of  the 
attendant,  who  stretches  for- 
ward with  shield  and  spear 
to  protect  his  master  from 
destruction,  if  the  arrow 
fails.  The  head  of  the  king 
is,  unfortunately,  injured ; 
but  the  remainder  of  the 
figure  is  perfect ; and  here, 
in  the  elaborate  ornamenta- 
tion of  the  whole  dress,  we 
have  an  example  of  the 
careful  finish  of  the  time — 
a finish  which  is  • so  light 
and  delicate  that  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  general  effect, 
being  scarcely  visible  at  a few  yards’  distance. 

The  faults  which  still  remain  in  this  best  period  of  Assyrian 
art  are  heaviness  and  stiffness  of  outline  in  the  human  forms ; 


Chap.  VI. 


SPIRIT  OF  THE  ANIMAL  FORMS. 


357 


a want  of  expression  in  the  faces,  and  of  variety  and  animation 
in  the  attitudes ; and  an  almost  complete  disregard  of  per- 
spective. If  the  worst  of  these  faults  are  anywhere  overcome  it 
would  seem  to  be  in  the  land  lion-hunt,  from  which  the  noble 
head  represented  below  is  taken  ; 4 and  in  the  river-hunt  of  the 
same  beast,  found  on  a slab  too  much  injured  to  be  removed, 
of  which  a representation  is  given  on  page  361.  From  what 
appears  to  have  remained  of  the  four  figures  towards  the  prow 
of  the  boat,  we  may  conclude  that  there  was  a good  deal  of 
animation  here.  The  drawing  must  certainly  have  been  less 
stiff  than  usual ; and  if  there  is  not  much  variety  in  the  atti- 


No.  I.  Wounded  lion,  about  to  fall,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik. 


tudes  of  the  three  spearmen  in  front,  at  any  rate  those  attitudes 
contrast  well,  both  with  the  stillness  of  the  unengaged  attend- 
ants in  the  rear,  and  with  the  animated  but  very  different 
attitude  of  the  king. 

Before  the  subject  of  Assyrian  sculpture  is  dismissed,  it  is 
necessary  to  touch  the  question,  whether  the  Assyrians  applied 
colour  to  statuary,  aud  if  so,  in  what  way  and  to  what  extent. 
Did  they,  like  the  Egyptians,1  cover  the  whole  surface  of  the 
stone  with  a layer  of  stucco,  and  then  paint  the  sculptured  parts 


4 See  page  358.  A representation  of 
the  whole  scene  would  have  been  given, 
had  this  work  been  on  a larger  scale  ; 
hut  it  is  impossible  to  do  justice  to  the 
highly-finished  sculptures  of  this  time 
within  the  limits  of  an  ordinary  octavo. 


The  scene  itself  may  he  studied  in  the 
British  Museum.  It  occupies  a portion 
of  the  eastern  wall  in  the  underground 
Assyrian  apartment. 

1 See  Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyptians , 
1st  Series,  vol.  iii.  p.  300. 


158 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


with  strong  colours — red,  blue,  yellow,  white,  and  black?  Or 
did  they,  like  the  Greeks,2  apply  paint  to  certain  portions  of 


2 See  Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyptians , 
1st  Series,  vol.  iii.  p.  299.  Wornum,  in 
Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Boman 
Antiquities  (ad  voc.  Pictuka),  goes  some- 


what further  than  Wilkinson  ; hut  still 
maintains  that  the  Greeks  did  not  colour 
the  flesh  of  statues. 


No.  II.  Wounded  lion  biting  a chariot- wheel,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik. 


Chap.  VI. 


SPIRIT  OF  THE  ANIMAL  FORMS. 


359 


their  sculptures  only,  as  the  hair,  eyes,  heard,  and  draperies  ? 
Or,  finally,  did  they  simply  leave  the  stone  in  its  natural  condi- 
tion, like  the  Italians  and  the  modern  sculptors  generally  ? 


King  shooting  a lion  on  the  spring,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik. 


360 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  present  appearance  of  the  sculptures  is  most  in  accord- 
ance with  the  last  of  these  three  theories,  or  at  any  rate  with 
that  theory  very  slightly  modified  by  the  second.  The  slabs 
now  offer  only  the  faintest  and  most  occasional  traces  of  colour. 
The  evidence,  however,  of  the  original  explorers  is  distinct,  that 
at  the  time  of  discovery  these  traces  were  very  much  more 
abundant.  Mr.  Layard  observed  colour  at  Nimrud  on  the  hair, 
beard,  and  eyes  of  the  figures,  on  the  sandals  and  the  bows,  on 
the  tongues  of  the  eagle-headed  mythological  emblems,  on  a 
garland  round  the  head  of  a winged  priest  (?),  and  on  the  repre- 
sentation of  fire  in  the  bas-relief  of  a siege.3  At  Khorsabad, 
MM.  Botta  and  Elandin  found  paint  on  the  fringes  of  draperies, 
on  fillets,  on  the  mitre  of  the  king,  on  the  flowers  carried  by 
the  winged  figures,  on  bows  and  spear-shafts,  on  the  harness  of 
the  horses,  on  the  chariots,  on  the  sandals,  on  the  birds,  and 
sometimes  on  the  trees.4  The  torches  used  to  fire  cities,  and  the 
flames  of  the  cities  themselves  were  invariably  coloured  red. 
M.  Flan  din  also  believed  that  he  could  detect,  in  some  in- 
stances, a faint  trace  of  yellow  ochre  on  the  flesh  and  on  the 
background  of  bas-reliefs,  whence  he  concluded  that  this  tint 
was  spread  over  every  part  not  otherwise  coloured.5 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  theory  of  an  absence  of 
colour,  or  of  a very  rare  use  of  it,  must  be  set  aside.  Indeed, 
as  it  is  certain  that  the  upper  portions  of  the  palace-walls,  both 
inside  andiohfside,  were  patterned  with  coloured  bricks,  cover- 
ing the  whole  space  above  the  slabs,  it  must  be  allowed  to  be 
extremely  improbable  that  at  a particular  line  colour  would  sud- 
denly and  totally  cease.  The  laws  of  decorative  harmony  forbid 
such  abrupt  transitions ; and  to  these  laws  all  nations  with  any 
taste  instinctively  and  unwittingly  conform.  The  Assyrian 
reliefs  were  therefore,  we  may  be  sure,  to  some  extent  coloured. 
The  real  question  is,  to  what  extent — in  the  Egyptian  or  in  the 
classical  style  ? 

3 Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p. 

306. 

4 See  M.  Botta’s  Monument  de  Ninive, 

Plates  12,  14,  43,  53,  61,  62,  63,  &c. 

Compare  the  general  statement,  vol.  v. 


p.  178. 

5 See  his  Voyage  arch€ologique  a Ninive , 
in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  for  July, 
1845,  p.  106. 


Lion-hunt  in  a river,  from  the  North  Palace,  Koyunjik  (ah.  b .c.  660). 


362 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YL 


In  Mr.  Layard’s  First  Series  of  ‘Monuments/  a preference 
was  expressed  for  what  may  be  called  the  Egyptian  theory.  In 
the  Frontispiece  of  that  work,  and  in  the  second  Plate,  containing 
the  restoration  of  a palace  interior,  the  entire  bas-reliefs  were 
represented  as  strongly  coloured.  A jet-black  was  assigned  to 
the  hair  and  beards  of  men  and  of  all  human-headed  figures,  to 
the  manes  and  tails  of  horses,  to  vultures,  eagle-heads,  and  the 
like;  a coarse  red-brown  to  winged  lions,  to  human  flesh,  to 
horses’  bodies,  and  to  various  ornaments ; a deep  yellow  to  com- 
mon lions,  to  chariot-wheels,  quivers,  fringes,  belts,  sandals  and 
other  portions  of  human  apparel ; white  to  robes,  helmets, 
shields,  tunics,  towns,  trees,  <fec. ; and  a dull  blue  to  some  of  the 
feathers  of  winged  lions  and  genii,  and  to  large  portions  of  the 
ground  from  which  the  sculptures  stood  out.  This  conception 
of  Assyrian  colouring,  framed  confessedly  on  the  assumption  of 
a close  analogy  between  the  ornamentation  of  Assyria  and  that 
of  Egypt,6  was  at  once  accepted  by  the  unlearned,  and  naturally 
enough  was  adopted  by  most  of  those  who  sought  to  popularise 
the  new  knowledge  among  their  countrymen.  Hence  the  strange 
travesties  of  Assyrian  art  which  have  been  seen  in  so-called 
“ Assyrian  Courts,”  where  all  the  delicacy  of  the  real  sculpture 
has  disappeared,  and  the  spectator  has  been  revolted  by  grim 
figures  of  bulls  and  lions,  from  which  a thick  layer  of  coarse 
paint  has  taken  away  all  dignity,  and  by  reliefs  which,  from  the 
same  cause,  have  lost  all  spirit  and  refinement. 

It  is  sufficient  objection  to  the  theory  here  treated  of,  that  it 
has  no  solid  basis  of  fact  to  rest  upon.  Colour  has  only  been 
found  on  portions  of  the  bas-reliefs,  as  on  the  hair  and  beards 
of  men,  on  head-ornaments,  to  a small  extent  on  draperies,  on 
the  harness  of  horses,  on  sandals,  weapons,  birds,  flowers,  and 
the  like.  Neither  the  flesh  of  men,  nor  the  bodies  of  animals, 
nor  the  draperies  generally,  nor  the  backgrounds  (except  perhaps 
at  Khorsabad 7),  present  the  slightest  appearance  of  having  been 


6 Monuments  of  Nineveh,  1st  Series, 
Description  of  the  Plates,  p.  1. 

7 The  opinion  of  M.  Flandin,  that  an 
ochre  tint  covered  the  flesh  and  the 
backgrounds  at  Khorsabad,  seems  to 


have  been  derived  from  a particular  in- 
stance, where,  according  to  M.  Botta,  the 
colouring  was  accidental,  and  dated  from 
a time  subsequent  to  the  ruin  of  the  palace 
(. Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  v.  p.  179). 


Chap.  VI. 


COLOURING  OF  THE  BAS-RELIEFS. 


363 


touched  by  paint.  It  is  inconceivable  that,  if  these  portions  of 
the  sculptures  were  universally,  or  even  ordinarily,  coloured,  the 
colour  should  have  so  entirely  disappeared  in  every  instance. 
It  is  moreover  inconceivable  that  the  sculptor,  if  he  knew  his 
work  was  about  to  be  concealed  beneath  a coating  of  paint, 
should  have  cared  to  give  it  the  delicate  elaboration  which  is 
found  at  any  rate  in  the  later  examples.  All  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  in  Assyrian  as  in  classical  sculpture,  colour  was 
sparingly  applied,  being  confined  to  such  parts  as  the  hair,  eyes, 
and  beards  of  men,  to  the  fringes  of  dresses,  to  horse-trappings, 
and  other  accessory  parts  of  the  representations.  In  this  way 
the  lower  part  of  the  walls  was  made  to  harmonise  sufficiently 
with  the  upper  portion,  which  was  wholly  coloured,  but  chiefly 
with  pale  hues.  At  the  same  time  a greater  distinctness  was 
given  to  the  scenes  represented  upon  the  sculptured  slabs,  the 
colour  being  judiciously  applied  to  disentangle  human  from  ani- 
mal figures,  dress  from  flesh,  or  human  figures  from  one  another. 

The  colours  actually  found  upon  the  bas-relief  are  four  only — 
red,  blue,  black,  and  white.1  The  red  is  a good  bright  tint,  far 
exceeding  in  brilliancy  that  of  Egypt.  On  the  sculptures  of 
Ehorsabad  it  approaches  to  vermilion,  while  on  those  of  Nimrud 
it  inclines  to  a crimson  or  lake  tint.2.  It  is  found  alternating 
with  the  natural  stone  on  the  royal  parasol  and  mitre ; 3 with 
blue  on  the  crests  of  helmets,4  the  trappings  of  horses,5  on 
flowers,6  sandals,7  and  on  fillets ; 8 and  besides,  it  occurs,  un- 
accompanied by  any  other  colour,  on  the  stems  and  branches  of 
trees,9  on  the  claws  of  birds,10  the  shafts  of  spears  and  arrows,11 


1 “ On  the  sculptures  I have  only 
found  black,  white,  red,  and  blue,”  says 
Mr.  Layard  (Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 
yol.  ii.  p.  310)  ; “ and  these  colours  alone 

were  used  in  the  painted  ornaments  of 

the  upper  chambers  at  Nimrud.  At 

Khorsabad,  yreen  and  yellow  continually . 

occurred  on  the  bas-reliefs ; at  Koyunjik, 
there  were  no  traces  whatever  of  colour.” 

But,  in  opposition  to  the  statement  in 

italics,  M.  Botta,  the  explorer  of  Khor- 

sabad, observes,  “ Nous  n’avons  trouve 

a Khorsabad  sur  les  sculptures  d’autres 

couleurs  que  le  rouge,  le  bleu,  et  le  noir.” 

(Monument,  vol.  v.  p.  178.)  The  green 


and  yellow  were  confined  to  the  ena- 
melled bricks. 

2 Layard,  Nineveh.,  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  ii.  p.  311. 

3 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  Plates  12, 
63,  and  113. 

4 Ibid.  Plate  61. 

5 Ibid.  Plates  53,  62,  63,  &c. 

6 Ibid.  Plates  43  and  113. 

7 Ibid.  Plate  14. 

8 Ibid.  Plate  43. 

9 Ibid.  Plates  110,  113,  and  114. 

10  Ibid.  Plates  110  and  114. 

11  Ibid.  Plates  61  and  65. 


364 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


on  bows,1  belts,2  fillets,3  quivers,4  maces,5  reins,6  sandals,7 
flowers,8  and  the  fringe  of  dresses.9  It  is  uncertain  whence  the 
colouring  matter  was  derived ; perhaps  the  substance  used  was 
the  suboxide  of  copper,  with  which  the  Assyrians  are  known  to 
have  coloured  their  red  glass.10 

The  blue  of  the  Assyrian  monuments  is  an  oxide  of  copper,11 
sometimes  containing  also  a trace  of  lead.12  Besides  occurring 
in  combination  with  red  in  the  cases  already  mentioned,  it  was 
employed  to  colour  the  foliage  of  trees,13  the  plumage  of  birds,14 
the  heads  of  arrows,15  and  sometimes  quivers 16  and  sandals.17 

White  occurs  very  rarely  indeed  upon  the  sculptures.  At 
Khorsabad  it  was  not  found  at  all ; at  Nimrud  it  was  confined 
to  the  inner  part  of  the  eye  on  either  side  of  the  pupil,18  and  in 
this  position  it  occurred  only  on  the  colossal  lions  and  bulls,  and 
a very  few  other  figures.  On  bricks  and  pottery  it  was  frequent, 
and  there  it  is  found  to  have  been  derived  from  tin ; 19  but  it  is 
uncertain  whether  the  white  of  the  sculptures  was  not  derived 
from  a commoner  material.20 

Black  is  applied  in  the  sculptures  chiefly  to  the  hair,  beards, 
and  eyebrows  of  men.21  It  was  also  used  to  colour  the  eyeballs, 
not  only  of  men,  but  also  of  the  colossal  lions  and  bulls.22  Some- 
times, when  the  eyeball  was  thus  marked,  a line  of  black  was 
further  carried  round  the  inner  edge  of  both  the  upper  and  the 
lower  eyelid.23  In  one  place  black  bars  have  been  introduced  to 
ornament  an  antelope’s  horns.24  On  the  older  sculptures  black 


1 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , Plates 
61  and  62. 

2 Ibid.  Plates  62,  65,  and  114. 

3 Ibid.  Plates  12,  14,  62,  and  65. 

4 Ibid.  Plate  63. 

5 Ibid.  Plate  114. 

6 Ibid.  Plate  53. 

7 Ibid.  Plate  81. 

8 Ibid.  Plates  74  and  75. 

9 Ibid.  Plate  63. 

10  See  Dr.  Percy’s  note  in  Mr.  Layard’s 
Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  672. 

11  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  310.  Birch,  Ancient  Pottery, 
vol.  i.  p.  127. 

12  Ibid.  p.  149. 

13  Botta,  Monument , Plates  110,  113, 
and  114. 


14  Ibid.  Plates  110  and  114. 

15  Ibid.  Plate  61. 

1(5  Ibid.  Plate  62.  17  Ibid.  Plate  14. 

18  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remainsf 
vol.  ii.  p.  312,  note. 

19  Birch,  Ancient  Pottery,  vol.  i.  p.  127. 

20  Mr.  Layard  conjectures  that  it  was 
obtained,  as  it  is  in  the  country  to  this 
day,  by  burning  the  alabaster  or  gypsum. 
(. Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  311.) 

21  Ibid.  p.  312.  For  instances,  see 
Layard’s  Monuments,  1st  Series,  Plate  92  ; 
Botta,  Monument,  Plates  12  and  43. 

22  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p. 
313. 

23  Monuments  of  Nineveh,  1st  Series, 
Plate  92. 

24  Botta,  Monument,  Plate  43. 


Chap.  VI. 


ORNAMENTAL  METALLURGY. 


365 


was  also  the  common  colour  for  sandals,  which  however  were 
then  edged  with  red.1  The  composition  of  the  black  is  uncertain. 
Browns  upon  the  enamelled  bricks  are  found  to  have  been 


Bronze  lion,  from  Nitnrud. 


derived  from  iron ; 2 but  Mr.  Layard  believes  the  black  upon  the 
sculptures  to  have  been,  like  the  Egyptian,  a bone  black  mixed 
with  a little  gam.3 


Fragments  of  bronze  ornaments  of  the  throne,  from  Nimrud  (after  Layard). 


The  ornamental  metallurgy  of  the  Assyrians  deserves  attention 
next  to  their  sculpture.  It  is  of  three  kinds,  consisting,  in  the 

1 Nineveh  ana  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  312,  note. 

3 Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  311. 


2 Birch,  1.  s.  c. 


366 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chai\  VI. 


first  place,  of  entire  figures,  or  parts  of  figures,  cast  in  a solid 
shape ; secondly,  of  castings  in  a low  relief ; and  thirdly,  of  em- 
bossed work  wrought  mainly  with  the  hammer,  but  finished  by 
a sparing  use  of  the  graving-tool. 

The  solid  castings  are  comparatively  rare,  and  represent  none 
but  animal  forms.  Lions,  which  seem  to  have  been  used  as 
weights,  occur  most  frequently.4  None  are  of  any  great  size  ; 
nor  have  we  any  evidence  that  the  Assyrians  could  cast  large 
masses  of  metal.  They  seem  to  have  used  castings,  not  (as  the 


Bronze  casting,  from  the  throne,  Nimrud  (after  Layard). 


Greeks  and  the  moderns)  for  the  greater  works  of  art,  but  only 
for  the  smaller.  The  forms  of  the  few  casts  which  have  come 
down  to  us  are  good,  and  are  free  from  the  narrowness  which 
characterises  the  representations  in  stone.5 

Castings  in  a low  relief  formed  the  ornamentation  of  thrones, 
stools,6  and  sometimes  probably  of  chariots.1  They  consisted  of 


4 Mr.  Layard  discovered  sixteen  of 
these  lions  in  one  place.  (. Nineveh  and 
its  Remains,  vol.  i.  p.  128.)  They  had 
all  rings  affixed  to  their  hacks,  which 

seemed  to  show  the  purpose  for  which 
they  were  intended.  The  largest  of  these 

lions  was  about  a foot  in  length. 


5 Supra,  p.  339. 

0 See  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Re- 
mains, vol.  ii.  p.  301  ; Botta,  Monument, 
Plate  19. 

1 Botta,  Plate  17.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  the  ornaments  in  this  case,  and 
in  those  referred  to  in  the  last  note,  were 


Chap.  VI. 


EMBOSSED  WORK. 


367 


animal  and  human  figures,  winged  deities,  griffins,  and  the  like. 
The  castings  were  chiefly  in  open  work,  and  were  attached  to 


the  furniture  which  they  ornamented  by  means  of  small  nails. 
They  have  no  peculiar  merit,  being  merely  repetitions  of  the 


Bronze  bull’s  head  from  throne  bitumen  inside  (after  Layard). 

(after  Layard). 


forms  with  which  we  are  familiar  from  their  occurrence  on 
embroidered  dresses  and  on  the  cylinders. 

The  embossed  work  of  the  Assyrians  is  the  most  curious  and 


cast  or  embossed,  since  we  have  only  the 
representations,  not  the  originals  them- 
selves. The  throne  ornaments,  however, 


were  actually  found  (Layard,  Nin.  and 
Bab.  pp.  198-200).  They  were  castings 
in  bronze. 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


363 


the  most  artistic  portion  of  their  metallurgy.  Sometimes  it 
consisted  of  mere  heads  and  feet  of  animals,  hammered  into 
shape  upon  a model  composed  of  clay  mixed  with  bitumen. 


(N.-W.  Palace,  Nimrud.)  Stool  or  chair  (Khorsabad). 


Sometimes  it  extended  to  entire  figures,  as  (probably)  in  the 
case  of  the  lions  clasping  each  other,  so  common  at  the  ends 

of  sword  - sheaths  (see  above),  the 
human  figures  which  ornament  the 
sides  of  chairs  or  stools,  and  the  like.2 
Occasionally  it  was  of  a less  solid, 
but  at  the  same  time  of  a more 
elaborate  character.  In  a palace  in- 
habited by  Sargon  at  Is  imrud,  and  in 
close  juxtaposition  with  a monument 
certainly  of  his  time,3  were  discovered 
Engraved  scarab  in  centre  of  cup.  by  j\]j.  Layard  a number  of  dishes, 
(N.  v . Palace,  Nimrud.)  piates,  and  bowls,  embossed  with  great 

taste  and  skill,  wdiick  are  among  the  most  elegant  specimens  of 
Assyrian  art  discovered  during  the  recent  researches.  Upon 


2 Here  again  we  cannot  be  certain  | fabrics,  like  sword-sheaths,  the  former 
whether  the  sculptures  represent  em-  I seems  more  probable, 

bossed  work  or  castings.  In  delicate  | 3 Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  196. 


Chap.  VI. 


ASSYRIAN  ART,  NATIVE  OR  FOREIGN  ? 


369 


these  were  represented  sometimes  hunting-scenes,  sometimes 
combats  between  griffins  and  lions,  or  between  men  and  lions, 
sometimes  landscapes  with  trees  and  figures  of  animals,  some- 
times mere  rows  of  animals  following  one  another.  One  or 
two  representations  from  these  bowls  have  been  already 
given.4  They  usually  contain  a star  or  scarab  in  the  centre, 
beyond  which  is  a series  of  bands  or  borders,  patterned,  most 
commonly  with  figures.  It  is  impossible  to  give  an  adequate 
idea  of  the  delicacy  and  spirit  of  the  drawings,  or  of  the  variety 
and  elegance  of  the  other  patterns,  in  a work  of  moderate 
dimensions  like  the  present.  Mr.  Layard,  in  his  Second  Series 
of 4 Monuments,’  has  done  justice  to  the  subject  by  pictorial  repre- 
sentation,5 while  in  his  ‘Nineveh  and  Babylon  ’ he  has  described 
the  more  important  of  the  vessels  separately.6  The  curious  student 
will  do  well  to  consult  these  two  works,  after  which  he  may 
examine  with  advantage  the  originals  in  the  British  Museum. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  features  observable  in  this  whole 
series  of  monuments,  is  its  semi-Egyptian  character.  The 
occurrence  of  the  scarab  has  been 
just  noticed.  It  appears  on  the 
bowls  frequently,  as  do  sphinxes 
of  an  Egyptian  type ; while  some- 
times heads  and  head-dresses 
purely  Egyptian  are  found,  as 
the  subjoined,7  which  are  well-  Egyptian  head-dresses  on  bronze  dishes, 
known  forms,  and  have  nothing  from  Nimrud- 

Assyrian  about  them ; and  in  one  or  two  instances  we  even 
meet  with  hieroglyphics,8  the  onk  (or  symbol  of  life), 
the  ibis,  &c.  These  facts  may  seem  at  first  sight  to  raise  a \f 


4 Supra,  pp.  223  and  225. 

5 Plates  57  to  67.  The  drawings  by 
Mr.  Prentice,  now  in  the  British  Museum, 
are  still  more  beautiful  than  these  plates, 
since  they  show  the  wonderful  colouring 
of  the  bronzes  at  the  time  of  their  arrival. 

6 Pages  185-190. 

7 Mr.  Layard  calls  No.  I.  a head  of 
Athor  (Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  187);  but  there 
are  no  sufficient  grounds  for  the  iden- 
tification. The  head  resembles  the  or- 


dinary mummy  type.  The  head-dress 
No.  II.  is  the  well-known  double  crown, 
worn  both  by  kings  and  gods,  represent- 
ing the  sovereignty  over  both  the  Upper 
and  the  Lower  country.  (AVilkinson, 
Ancient  Egyptians , vol.  iii.  p.  354.) 

8  Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 
Plate  61,  b ; Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  187.  On 
the  ank  or  onk , see  Wilkinson,  vol.  v.  p. 
283. 

2 B 


VOL.  I. 


370 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


great  question — namely,  whether,  after  all,  the  art  of  the  Assyrians 
was  really  of  home  growth,  or  was  not  rather  imported  from  the 
Egyptians,  either  directly  or  by  way  of  Phoenicia.  Such  a view 
has  been  sometimes  taken ; but  the  most  cursory  study  of  the 
Assyrian  remains,  in  chronological  order , is  sufficient  to  disprove 
the  theory,  since  it  will  at  once  show  that  the  earliest  specimens 
of  Assyrian  art  are  the  most  un-Egyptian  in  character.  No 
doubt  there  are  certain  analogies  even  here,  as  the  preference 
for  the  profile,  the  stiffness  and  formality,  the  ignorance  or 
disregard  of  perspective,  and  the  like  ; but  the  analogies  are 
exactly  such  as  would  be  tolerably  sure  to  occur  in  the  early 
efforts  of  any  two  races  not  very  dissimilar  to  one  another,  while 
the  little  resemblances,  which  alone  prove  connexion,  are  entirely 
wanting.  These  do  not  appear  until  we  come  to  monuments 
which  belong  to  the  time  of  Sargon.  when  direct  connexion 
between  Egypt  and  Assyria  seems  to  have  begun,  and  Egyptian 
captives  are  known  to  have  been  transported  into  Mesopotamia 
in  large  numbers.9  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  entire  series 
of  Nimrud  vessels  is  Phoenician,  and  that  they  were  either 
carried  off  as  spoil  from  Tyre  and  other  Phoenician  towns,  or 
else  were  the  workmanship  of  Phoenician  captives  removed  into 
Assyria  from  their  own  country.  The  Sidonians  and  their 
kindred  were,  it  is  remarked,  the  most  renowned  workers  in 
metal  of  the  ancient  world,  and  their  intermediate  position 
between  Egypt  and  Assyria,  may,  it  is  suggested,  have  been  the 
cause  of  the  existence  among  them  of  a mixed  art,  half 
Assyrian,  half  Egyptian.1  The  theory  is  plausible ; but  upon 
the  whole  it  seems  more  consonant. with  all  the  facts2  to  regard 
the  series  in  question  as  in  reality  Assyrian,  modified  from  the 
ordinary  style  by  an  influence  derived  from  Egypt.  Either 


0 Isaiah  xx.  4. 

1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  192. 

2 It  is  urged  that  Phoenician  charac- 
ters appear  on  one  of  the  plates  (ibid.  p. 
188),  that  the  searab  which  occurs  on 
so  many  of  them  (supra,  woodcut  on 
p.  368)  is  “more  of  a Phoenician  than 
an  Egyptian  form”  (ib.  p.  186),  and  that 
some  silver  bowls  of  the  same  character, 


found  in  Cyprus,  are  almost  certainly 
Phoenician  (ib.  p.  192,  note).  But  these 
last  may  well  be  Assyrian,  since  some 
Assyrian  remains  have  certainly  been 
brought  from  the  island ; and  the  other 
points  are  too  doubtful  and  too  minute 
to  set  against  the  strong  Assyrian  cha- 
racter of  the  great  bulk  of  the  ornaments 
and  figures. 


Chap.  VI. 


METALS  USED. 


371 


Ear-ring. 
(N.-W.  Palace, 
Himrud.) 


Egyptian  artificers — captives  probably — may  have  wrought  the 
bowls  after  Assyrian  models,  and  have  acci- 
dentally varied  the  common  forms,  more  or  less, 
in  the  direction  which  was  natural  to  them 
from  old  habits ; or  Assyrian  artificers,  ac- 
quainted with  the  art  of  Egypt,  and  anxious 
to  improve  their  own  from  it,  may  have  con- 
sciously  adopted  certain  details  from  the  rival 
country.  The  workmanship,  subjects,  and  mode 
of  treatment,  are  all,  it  is  granted,  “ more  As- 
syrian than  Egyptian,” 3 the  Assyrian  character 
being  decidedly  more  marked  than  in  the  case 
of  the  ivories  which  will  be  presently  considered: ; 
yet  even  in  that  case  the  legitimate  conclusion 
seems  to  be  that  the  specimens  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  native  Assyrian,  but  as  produced 
abnormally,  under  a strong  foreign  influence. 

The  usual  material  of  the  Assyrian  orna- 
mental metallurgy  is  bronze,  composed  of  one 
part  of  tin  to  ten  of  copper,4  which  are  exactly 
the  proportions  considered  to  be  best  by  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  and  still  in  ordinary  use 
at  the  present  day.  In  some  instances,  where 
more  than  common  strength  was  required,  as 
in  the  legs  of  tripods  and  tables,  the  bronze 
was  ingeniously  cast  over  an  inner  structure  of 
iron.3  This  practice  was  unknown  to  modern 
metallurgists  until  the  discovery  of  the  Assyrian 
specimens,  from  which  it  has  been  successfully 
imitated.6 

We  may  presume  that*  besides  bronze,  the 
Assyrians  used,  to  a certain  extent,  silver  and 
gold  as  materials  for  ornamental  metal-work.  Assyrian  earrings. 
The  ear-rings,  bracelets,  and  armlets,  worn  by  the  (Kds,rsadad> 
kings  and  the  great  officers  of  state  were  probably  of  the  more 


3 Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  192>..  4l  Ibid.  p.  191. 

6 Ibidi  p.  191,  note. 


s Ibid.  p.  178. 

2 B 2 


372 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


valuable  metal,  while  the  similar  ornaments  worn  by  those  of 
minor  rank  may  have  been  of  silver.  One  solitary  specimen 
only  of  either  class  has  been  found ; 7 but  Mr.  Layard  dis- 
covered several  moulds,  with  tasteful  designs  for  ear-rings, 
both  at  Nimrud  and  at  Koyunjik;8  and  the  sculptures  show 
that  both  in  these  and  the  other  personal  ornaments  a good  deal 
of  artistic  excellence  was  exhibited.  The  ear-rings  are  frequent 


Bronze  cubes  inlaid  with  gold.  (Original  size.)  After  Layard. 


in  the  form  of  a cross,  and  are  sometimes  delicately  chased. 
The  armlets  and  bracelets  generally  terminate  in  the  heads  of 
rams  or  bulls,  which  seem  to  have  been  rendered  with  spirit 
and  taste. 

By  one  or  two  instances  it  appears  that  the  Assyrians  knew 

how  to  inlay  one  metal 
with  another.  The  spe- 
cimens discovered  are 
scarcely  of  an  artistic 
Egyptian  scarab  (from  Wilkinson).  character,  being  merely 

winged  scarabsei  outlined 
in  gold  on  a bronze  ground.9  The  work,  however,  is  delicate, 
and  the  form  very  much  more  true  to  nature  than  that  which 
prevailed  in  Egypt. 

The  ivories  of  the  Assyrians  are  inferior  both  to  their  metal 
castings  and  to  their  bas-reliefs.  They  consist  almost  entirely 


7 Mr.  Layard  found  a gold  ear-ring 

adorned  with  pearls,  together  with  a 

number  of  purely  Assyrian  relics,  at 


Koyunjik  ( Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  595). 
He  has  figured  it,  p.  597. 

8 Ibid.  pp.  595,  596.  9 Ibid.  p.  196. 


Chap.  VI. 


IVORIES. 


373 


of  a single  series,  discovered  by  Mr.  Layard  in  a chamber  of  the 
North-West  Palace  at  Nimrud,  in  the  near  vicinity  of  slabs  on 
which  was  engraved  the  name  of  Sargon.10  The  most  remark- 
able point  connected  with  them  is  the  thoroughly  Egyptian 
character  of  the  greater  num- 
ber, which,  at  first  sight,  have 
almost  the  appearance  of  being 
importations  from  the  valley 
of  the  Nile.  Egyptian  profiles, 

head-dl  esses,  fashions  of  dress-  Fragment  of  ivory  panel,  from  Nimrud. 
ing  the  hair,  ornaments,  atti- 
tudes, meet  us  at  every  turn ; while  sometimes  we  find  the 
representations  of  Egyptian  gods,  and  in  two  cases  hiero- 
glyphics within  cartouches  (see  overleaf).  A few  specimens 
only  are  of  a distinctly  Assyrian  type,  as  a fragment  of  a 


Fragment  of  a lion  in  ivory  (Nimrud). 


panel,  figured  by  Mr.  Layard,1  and  one  or  two  others,  in 
which  the  guilloche  border  appears.2  These  carvings  are 
usually  mere  low  reliefs,  occupying  small  panels  or  tablets, 


10  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  pp. 
8-10  and  p.  205.  For  other  discoveries 
of  ivory  objects,  see  Nineveh  and  Babylon , 


pp.  179,  195,  and  362. 

1 Monuments , 1st  Series,  Plate  89,  fig.  8. 

2 Ibid.  Plate  90,  figs.  17  and  22. 


374 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


Figures  and  cartouche  with  hieroglyphics,  on  ah  ivory  panel,  North-West  Palace,  Nimrud  (after  Layard). 


Chap.  VI. 


IVORIES. 


37  S 


which  were  mortised  or  glued  to  the  woodwork  of  furniture. 
They  were  sometimes  inlaid  in  parts  with  blue  glass,  or  with 
blue  and  green  pastes  let  into  the  ivory, 
and  at  the  same  time  decorated  with  gild- 
ing. Now  and  then  the  relief  is  tolerably 
high,  and  presents  fragments  of  forms 
which  seem  to  have  had  some  artistic 
merit.  The  best  of  these  is  the  fore  part 
of  a lion  walking  among  reeds  (p.  373), 
which  presents  analogies  with  the  early 
art  of  Asia  Minor.  One  or  two  stags’ 
heads  have  likewise  been  found,  designed 
and  wrought  with  much  spirit  and  delicacy. 

It  is  remarked  that  several  of  the  sped-  Fragmcnt^f^stag  in  ivory 
mens  show  not  only  a considerable  ac- 
quaintance with  art,  but  also  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
method  of  working  in  ivory.3  One  head  of  a lion  was  44  of  sin- 
gular beauty ; ” but  unfortunately  it  fell  to  pieces  at  the  very 
moment  of  discovery. 

It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  objects  here  described  may  be 
actual  specimens  of  Egyptian  art,  sent  to  Sargon  as  tribute  or 
presents,  or  else  carried  off  as  plunder  in  his  Egyptian  expe- 
dition. The  appearance,  however,  which  even  the  most  Egyp- 
tian of  them  present,  on  a close  examination,  is  rather  that  of 
Asssyrian  works  imitated  from  Egyptian  models  than  of  genuine 
Egyptian  productions.  For  instance,  in  the  tablet  figured  on 
the  page  opposite,  where  we  see  hieroglyphics  within  a cartouche, 
the  orik  or  symbol  of  life,4  the  solar  disk,  the  double  ostrich- 
plume,  the  long  hair-dress  called  namms,  and  the  tam  or  kukujpha 
sceptre5 — all  unmistakeable  Egyptian  features — we  observe  a 
style  of  drapery  which  is  quite  unknown  in  Egypt,  while  in 
several  respects  it  is  Assyrian,  or  at  least  Mesopotamian.  It  is 
scanty,  like  that  of  all  Assyrian  robed  figures  ; striped,  like  the 
draperies  of  the  Chaldseans  and  Babylonians ; fringed  with  a 


3 Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  10. 

4 See  above,  p.  369.  The  symbol  occurs 

at  the  foot  of  the  chairs. 


5 See  Mr.  Birch’s  description  in  Mr. 
Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii. 
p.  11,  note. 


376 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


broad  fringe  elaborately  coloured,  as  Assyrian  fringes  are  known 
to  bave  been ; 6 and  it  bas  large  hanging  sleeves  also  fringed,  a 
fashion  which  appears  once  or  twice  upon  the  Nimrud  sculp- 
tures.7 But  if  this  specimen,  notwithstanding  its  numerous  and 


striking  Egyptian  features,  is  rightly  regarded  as  Mesopotamian, 
it  would  seem  to  follow  that  the  rest  of  the  series  must  still 
more  decidedly  be  assigned  to  native  genius. 

The  enamelled  bricks  of  the  Assyrians  are  among  the  most 
interesting  remains  of  their  art.  It  is  from  these  bricks  alone 
that  we  are  able  to  judge  at  all  fully  of  their  knowledge  and 
ideas  with  respect  to  colour ; and  it  is  from  them  also  chiefly 
that  an  analysis  has  been  made  of  the  colouring  materials 
employed  by  the  Assyrian  artists.  The  bricks  may  be  divided 
into  two  classes— those  which  are  merely  patterned,  and  those 
which  contain  designs  representing  men  and  animals.  The 
patterned  bricks  have  nothing  about  them  which  is  very 
remarkable.  They  present  the  usual  guilloches,  rosettes,  bands, 

6 See  above,  p.  364. 

7 Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 1st  Series,  Plate  62.  The  hanging  sleeve  is, 
however,  worn  only  on  one  arm. 


Chap.  VI. 


ENAMELLED  BEICKS. 


377 


scrolls,  &c.,  such  as  are  found  in  the  painted  chambers  and  in 
the  ornaments  on  dresses,  varied  with  geometrical  figures,  as 
circles,  hexagons,  octagons,  and  the  like ; and  sometimes  with 
a sort  of  arcade-work,  which  is  curious,  if  not  very  beautiful.8 
The  colours  chiefly  used  in  the  patterns  are  pale  green,  pale 
yellow,  dark  brown,  and  white.  Now  and  then  an  intense  blue 
and  a bright  red  occur,  generally  together;9  but  these  positive 
hues  are  rare,  and  the  taste  of  the  Assyrians  seems  to  have  led 
them  to  prefer,  for  their  patterned  walls,  pale  and  dull  hues. 
The  same  preference  appears,  even  more  strikingly,  in  the 
bricks  on  which  designs  are  represented.  There  the  tints 
almost  exclusively  used 
are  pale  yellow,  pale 
greenish  blue,  olive- 
green,  white,  and  a 
brownish  black.  It  is 
suggested  that  the  co- 
lours have  faded,1  but  of 
this  there  is  no  evidence. 

The  Assyrians,  wdien  they 
used  the  primitive  hues, 
seem,  except  in  the  case 
of  red,  to  have  employed  subdued,  tints  of  them,  and  red 
they  appear  to  have  introduced  very  sparingly.2  Olive-green 
they  affected  for  grounds,  and  they  occasionally  used  other 
half  tints.  A pale  orange  and  a delicate  lilac  or  pale  purple 
were  found  at  Khorsabad,3  while  brown  (as  already  observed)  is 
far  more  common  on  the  bricks  than  black.  Thus  the  general 
tone  of  their  colouring  is  quiet,  not  to  say  sombre.  There  is  no 
striving  after  brilliant  effects.  The  Assyrian  artist  seeks  to 


Arcade  work,  on  enamelled  brick  (Nimrud). 


8 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  Plates  84,  86,  and  87. 

9 Ibid.  Plate  84,  figs.  9 and  12. 

1 Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  166. 

2 There  is  a curious  contrast  between 
the  bricks  and  the  sculptures  in  this 
respect.  In  the  sculptures  there  is  no 
yellow,  but  abundance  of  red.  It  is  a 
reasonable  conjecture  of  Mr.  Layard’s, 
that  in  these  “some  of  the  red  tints 


which  remain  were  originally  laid  on  to 
receive  gilding.”  ( Nineveh  and  its  Re- 
mains, vol.  ii.  p.  313,  note.) 

3 Monument  de  Ninive,  Plate  155,  figs. 
3,  5,  and  9.  Mr.  Layard  says  he  found 
purple  and  violet  on  some  of  the  Nimrud 
bricks  ( Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii. 
p.  310) ; but  he  does  not  represent  these 
colours. 


3 78 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


please  by  tbe  elegance  of  bis  forms  and  the  harmony  of  his  hues, 
not  to  startle  by  a display  of  bright  and  strongly-contrasted 
colours. 

The  tints  used  in  a single  composition  vary  from  three  to  five, 
which  latter  number  they  seem  never  to  exceed.  The  following 
are  the  combinations  of  five  hues  which  occur  : — Brown,  green, 
blue,  dark  yellow,  and  pale  yellow ; 4 orange,  lilac,  white,  yellow* 
and  olive-green.5  Combinations  of  four  hues  are  much  more 
common : e.  g.  red,  white,  yellow,  and  black ; 6 deep  yellow* 
brown  black,  white,  and  pale  yellow ; 7 8 9 10 lilac,  yellow,  white,  and 
green;8  yellow,  blue,  white,  and  brown;9  and  yellow,  blue, 
white,  and  olive-green.10  Sometimes  the  tints  are  as  few  as 
three,  the  ground  in  these  cases  being  generally  of  a hue  used 
also  in  the  figures.  Thus  wre  have  yellow,  blue,  and  white  on  a 
blue  ground,11  and  again  the  same  colours  on  a yellow  ground.12 
We  have  also  the  simple  combinations  of  white  and  yellow  on  a 
blue  ground,13  and  of  white  and  yellow  on  an  olive-green 

14 

In  every  case  there  is  a great  harmony  in  the  colouring.  We 
find  no  harsh  contrasts.  Either  the  tones  are  all  subdued,  or  if 
any  are  intense  and  positive,  then  all  (or  almost  all)  are  so. 
Intense  red  occurs  in  two  fragments  of  patterned  bricks  found 
by  Mr.  Layard.15  It  is  balanced  by  intense  blue,  and  accompanied 
in  each  case  by  a full  brown  and  a clear  white,  while  in  one 
case 16  it  is  further  accompanied  by  a pale  green,  which  has  a 
very  good  effect.  A similar  red  appears  on  a design  figured  by 
M.  Botta.17  Its  accompaniments  are  white,  black,  and  a full 
yellow.  Where  lilac  occurs,  it  is  balanced  by  its  complementary 
colour,  yellow,18  or  by  yellow  and  orange,19  and  further  accom- 


4 Layard,  Monuments,  1st  Series,  Plate 
84,  fig.  2. 

5 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , Plate 

155,  fig.  3.  6 Ibid.  fig.  2. 

7 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  Plate 
55,  fig.  6. 

8 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , Plate 
155,  figs.  5 and  9. 

9 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  Plate 
53,  fig.  6. 

10  Ibid.  Plate  53,  figs.  3 and  4 ; Plate 


54,  figs.  12,  13,  and  14. 

11  Ibid.  Plate  53,  figs.  2 and  5 ; and 
Plate  54,  fig.  9. 

12  Ibid.  Plate  53,  fig.  1. 

13  Ibid.  Plate  54,  fig.  7. 

14  Ibid.  Plate  54,  fig.  8. 

15  Ibid.  1st  Series,  Plate  84,  figs.  9 

and  12.  16  Fig.  9. 

17  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  ii.  Plate 
155,  fig.  2. 

18  Ibid.  figs.  5 and  9.  19  Ibid.  fig.  3. 


Chap.  VI. 


DRAWING  AND  SIZE  OF  DESIGNS. 


379 


panied  by  white.  It  is  noticeable  also  that  bright  hues  are  not 
placed  one  against  the  other,  but  are  separated  by  narrow  bands 
of  white,  or  brown  and  white.  This  use  of  white  gives  a great 
delicacy  and  refinement  to  the  colouring,  which  is  saved  by  it, 
even  where  the  hues  are  the  strongest,  from  being  coarse  or 
vulgar. 

The  drawing  of  the  designs  resembles  that  of  the  sculptures, 
except  that  the  figures  are  generally  slimmer  and  less  muscular. 
The  chief  peculiarity  is  the  strength  of  the  outline,  which  is 


Human  figure,  on  enamelled  brick  Ram’s  head,  on  enamelled  brick 

(from  Nimrud).  (from  Nimrud). 

almost  always  coloured  differently  from  the  object  drawn,  either 
white,  black,  yellow,  or  brown.  Generally  it  is  of  an  uniform 
thickness  (as  in  No.  I.) ; sometimes,  though  rarely,  it  has  that 
variety  which  characterises  good  drawdng  (as  in  No.  II.).  Occa- 
sionally there  is  a curious  combination  of  the  two  styles,  as  in 
the  specimen  overleaf — the  most  interesting  yet  discovered — 
where  the  dresses  of  the  two  main  figures  are  coarsely  outlined 
in  yellow,  while  the  remainder  of  the  design  is  very  lightly 
sketched  in  a brownish  black. 

The  size  of  the  designs  varies  considerably.  Ordinarily  the 
figures  are  small,  each  brick  containing  several ; but  sometimes 


3So 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


a scale  has  been  adopted  of  such  a size  that  portions  of  the  same 
figure  must  have  been  on  different  bricks.  A foot  and  leg, 
brought  by  Mr.  Layard  from  Nimrud,  must  have  belonged  to  a 
man  a foot  high ; 1 while  part  of  a human  face  discovered  in  the 
same  locality,  is  said  to  indicate,  for  the  form  to  which  it 
belonged,  a height  of  three  feet.2  Such  a size  as  this  is,  how- 
ever, very  unusual. 


It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  state  that  the  designs  on  the  bricks 
are  entirely  destitute  of  chiaroscuro.  The  browns  and  blacks, 
like  the  blues,  yellows,  and  reds,  are  simply  used  to  express 
local  colour.  They  are  employed  for  hair,  eyes,  eyebrows,  and 
sometimes  for  bows  and  sandals.  The  other  colours  are  applied 

1 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery , vol.  1.  p.  127.  The  fragment  is  figured  in  Mr.  Layard’s 

Monuments,  1st  Series,  Plate  84,  fig.  2.  2 Birch,  p.  129, 


Chap.  VI.' 


COLOUKING. 


381 


as  follows : — Yellow  is  used  for  flesh,  for  shafts  of  weapons,  for 
horse-trappings,  sometimes  for  horses,  for  chariots,  cups,  ear- 
rings, bracelets,  fringes,  for  wing-feathers,  occasionally  for 
helmets,  and  almost  always  for  the  hoofs  of  horses;  blue  is  used 
for  shields,  for  horses,  for  some  parts  of  horse-trappings,  armour, 
and  dresses,  for  fish,  and  for  feathers;  white  is  employed  for  the 
inner  part  of  the  eye,  for  the  linen  shirt  worn  by  men,  for  the 
markings  on  fish  and  feathers,  for  horses,  for  buildings,3  for 
patterns  on  dresses,  for  rams’  heads,  and  for  portions  of  the  tiara 
of  the  king.  Olive-green  seems  to  occur  only  as  a ground;  red 
only  in  some  parts  of  the  royal  tiara ; orange  and  lilac  only  in 
the  wings  of  winged  monsters.4  It  is  doubtful  how  far  we  may 
trust  the  colours  on  the  bricks  as  accurately  or  approximately 
resembling  the  real  local  hues.  In  some  cases  the  intention 
evidently  is  to  be  true  to  nature,  as  in  the  eyes  and  hair  of  men, 
in  the  representations  of  flesh,  fish,  shields,  bows,  buildings,  &c. 
The  yellow  of  horses  may  represent  cream-colour,  and  the  blue 
may  stand  for  grey,  as  distinct  from  white,  which  seems  to  have 
been  correctly  rendered.5  The  scarlet  and  white  of  the  king’s 
tiara  is  likely  to  be  true.  When,  however,  we  find  eyeballs  and 
eyebrows  white,  while  the  inner  part  of  the  eye  is  yellow,6  the 
blade  of  swords  yellow,7  and  horses’  hoofs  blue,8  we  seem  to  have 
proof  that,  sometimes  at  any  rate,  local  colour  was  intentionally 
neglected;  the  artist  limiting  himself  to  certain  hues,  and  being 
therefore  obliged  to  render  some  objects  untruly.  Thus  we 
must  not  conclude  from  the  colours  of  dresses  and  horse-trap- 
pings on  the  bricks — which  are  three  only,  yellow,  blue,  and 
white — that  the  Assyrians  used  no  other  hues  than  these,  even 
for  the  robes  of  their  kings.9  It  is  far  more  probable  that  they 
employed  a variety  of  tints  in  their  apparel,  but  did  not  attempt 
to  render  that  variety  on  the  ordinary  painted  bricks.1 


3 Buildings  are  white,  but  the  battle- 
ments and  some  courses  in  the  stone  are 
touched  with  yellow.  A door  in  one  is 
coloured  blue.  (Layard,  Monuments , 2nd 
Series,  Plate  53,  fig.  5.) 

4 The  authorities  for  these  statements 

are  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series, 

Plates  84  and  87 ; 2nd  Series,  Plates  53, 

54,  and  55 ; and  Botta’s  Monument  de 

Ninive , Plate  155. 


5 See  the  two  fore  legs  of  a horse  in  a 
fragment  figured  by  Mr.  Layard,  Monu- 
ments, 2nd  Series,  Plate  54,  fig.  14. 

6 Ibid.  fig.  7.  7 Ibid.  fig.  12. 

8 Ibid.  fig.  14. 

9 Yellow,  white,  and  a pale  blue  or 
green,  are  the  only  colours  on  the  dress 
of  the  king  figured  opposite. 

1 M.  Botta’s  fragment  (figured  Plate 
155,  fig.  2)  is  a unique  specimen.  Had 


382 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  pigments  used  by  the  Assyrians  seem  to  have  derived 
their  tints  entirely  from  minerals.  The  opaque  white  is  found 
to  be  oxide  of  tin ; the  yellow  is  the  antimoniate  of  lead,  or 
Naples  yellow,  with  a slight  admixture  of  tin ; the  blue  is  oxide 
of  copper,  without  any  cobalt ; the  green  is  also  from  copper ; 
the  brown  is  from  iron ; and  the  red  is  a suboxide  of  copper.2 
The  bricks  were  slightly  baked  before  being  painted ; they  were 
then  taken  from  the  kiln,  painted  and  enamelled  on  one  side 
only,  the  flux  and  glazes  used  being  composed  of  silicate  of  soda 
aided  by  oxide  of  lead;3  thus  prepared,  they  were  again  sub- 
mitted to  the  action  of  fire,  care  being  taken  to  place  the  painted 


Impression  of  ancient  Assyrian  cylinder,  in  serpentine. 


side  upwards,4  and  having  been  thoroughly  baked  were  then 
ready  for  use. 

The  Assyrian  intaglios  on  stones  and  gems  are  commonly  of  a 
rude  description ; but  occasionally  they  exhibit  a good  deal  of 
delicacy,  and  sometimes  even  of  grace.  They  are  cut  upon 
serpentine,  jasper,  chalcedony,  cornelian,  agate,  sienite,  quartz, 
loadstone,  amazon-stone,  and  lapis-lazuli.5  The  usual  form  of 


it  contained  the  robes  of  the  king  as 
well  as  his  head-dress,,  we  should  pro- 
bably have  learnt  the  real  hues  of  the 
royal  garments. 

2 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery , vol.  i.  p.  128  ; 
Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  166,  note. 

3 Birch,  1.  s.  c. ; Layard,.  Nineveh  and 
Babylon , p.  672. 


4 This  is  evidenced  by  the  bricks 
themselves,  where  we  can  often  see  that 
the  melted  enamel  has  run  over  and 
trickled  down  the  sides.  (See  Birch, 
Ancient  Pottery , vol.  i.  128.) 

5 King’s  Ancient  Gems,  pp.  127-129 ; 
Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  602- 
604. 


Chap.  VI. 


INTAGLIOS. 


383 


Assyrian  seals. 


the  stone  is  cylindrical ; the  sides,  however,  being  either  slightly 
convex  or  slightly  concave,  most  frequently  the  latter.  The 
cylinder  is  always  perforated  in  the  direction  of  its  axis. 
Besides  this  ordinary  form,  a few  gems,  shaped  like  the  Greek, 
that  is,  either  round  or  oval, 
have  been  found  ; and  nu- 
merous impressions  from 
such  gems  on  sealing-clay 
shew  that  they  must  have 
been  tolerably  common.6 
The  subjects  which  occur 
are  mostly  the  same  as 
those  on  the  sculptures — 
warriors  pursuing  their  foes, 
hunters  in  full  chase,  the 
king  slaying  a lion,  winged 
bulls  before  the  sacred  tree, 
acts  of  worship  and  other 
religious  or  mythological 
scenes.  There  appears  to 
have  been  a gradual  im- 
provement in  the  workman- 
ship from  the  earliest  period 
to  the  time  of  Sennacherib, 
when  the  art  culminates. 

A cylinder  found  in  the 
ruins  of  Sennacherib’s  palace 
at  Koyunjik,  which  is  be- 
lieved with  reason  to  have 
been  his  signet,7  is  scarcely 
surpassed  in  delicacy  of  exe- 
cution by  any  intaglio  of 

the  Greeks.  The  design  has  a good  deal  of  the  usual  stiffness, 
though  even  here  something  may  be  said  for  the  ibex  or  wild- 
goat,  which  stands  upon  the  lotus  flower  to  the  left ; but  the 


Assyrian  cylinder,  with  the  Fish -God. 


Royal  cylinder  of  Sennacherib. 


6 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 2nd  Series,  Plate  69,  No.  1 to  32. 

7 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  160 ; King,  Ancient  Gems , p.  129. 


3§4 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


special  excellence  of  the  gem  is  in  the  fineness  and  minuteness 
of  its  execution.  The  intaglio  is  not  very  deep ; but  all  the 
details  are  beautifully  sharp  and  distinct,  while  they  are  on  so 
small  a scale  that  it  requires  a magnifying  glass  to  distinguish 
them.  The  material  of  the  cylinder  is  translucent  green  felspar, 
or  amazon  stone,  one  of  the  hardest  substances  known  to  the 
lapidary.8 

The  fictile  art  of  the  Assyrians  in  its  higher  branches,  as 
employed  for  directly  artistic  purposes,  has  been  already  con- 
sidered ; but  a few  pages  may  be  now  devoted  to  the  humbler 
divisions  of  the  subject,  where  the  useful  preponderates  over  the 
ornamental.  The  pottery  of  Assyria  bears  a general  resem- 
blance in  shape,  form,  and  use,  to  that  of  Egypt ; but  still  it 
has  certain  specific  differences.  According  to  Mr.  Birch,  it  is, 
generally  speaking,  “ finer  in  its  paste,  brighter  in  its  colour, 
employed  in  thinner  masses,  and  for  purposes  not  known  in 
Egypt.”9  Abundant  and  excellent  clay  is  furnished  by  the 
valley  of  the  Tigris,  more  especially  by  those  parts  of  it  which 
are  subject  to  the  annual  inundation.  The  chief  employment  of 
this  material  by  the  Assyrians  was  for  bricks,  which  were  either 
simply  dried  in  the  sun,  or  exposed  to  the  action  of  fire  in  a kiln. 
In  this  latter  case  they  seem  to  have  been  uniformly  slack- 
baked;  they  are  light  for  their  size,  and  are  of  a pale-red 
colour.1  The  clay  of  which  the  bricks  were  composed  was  mixed 
with  stubble  or  vegetable  fibre,  for  the  purpose  of  holding  it 
together — a practice  common  to  the  Assyrians  with  the  Egyp- 
tians 2 and  the  Babylonians.3  This  fibre  still  appears  in  the  sun- 
dried  bricks,  but  has  been  destroyed  by  the  heat  of  the  kiln  in 
the  case  of  the  baked  bricks,  leaving  behind  it,  however,  in  the 
clay  traces  of  the  stalks  or  stems.  The  size  and  shape  of  the 
bricks  vary.  They  are  most  commonly  square,  or  nearly  so  ; 
but  occasionally  the  shape  more  resembles  that  of  the  ancient 
Egyptian  and  modern  English  brick,4  the  width  being  about 


8 King,  Introduction,  p.  xxxvi. 

9 Ancient  Pottery , voL  i.  p.  105. 

1 Ibid.  p.  108. 

2 Wilkinson,  in  the  author’s  Herodotus , 
vol.  ii.  p.  215;  Birch,  Ancient  Pottery, 


vol.  i.  pp.  12,  13.  Hence  the  complaints 
of  the  Israelites  when  they  received  “ no 
straw  for  their  bricks”  (Ex.  v.  7-18). 

3 Birch,  p.  132. 

4 Ibid.  p.  13,  and  p.  109. 


Chap.  VI. 


BEICKS— POTTERY. 


385 


half  the  length,  and  the  thickness  half  or  two-thirds  of  the  width. 
The  greatest  size  to  which  the  square  bricks  attain  is  a length 
and  width  of  about  two  feet.5  From  this  maximum  they  descend 
by  manifold  gradations  to  a minimum  of  one  foot.  The  oblong 
bricks  are  smaller ; they  seldom  much  exceed  a foot  in  length, 
and  in  width  vary  from  six  to  seven  and  a half  inches.  What- 
ever the  shape  and  size  of  the  bricks,  their  thickness  is  nearly 
uniform,  the  thinnest  being  as  much  as  three  inches  in  thick- 
ness, and  the  thickest  not  more  than  four  inches  or  four  and  a 
half.  Each  brick  was  made  in  a wooden  frame  or  mould.7  Most 
of  the  baked  bricks  were  inscribed,  not  however  like  the 
Chaldman,8  the  Egyptian,9  and  the  Babylonian,10  with  an  inscrip- 
tion in  a small  square  or  oval  depression  near  the  centre  of  one 
of  the  broad  faces,  but  with  one  which  either  covered  the  whole 
of  one  such  face,  or  else  ran  along  the  edge.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  the  inscription  was  stamped  upon  the  bricks  by  a single 
impression,  or  whether  it  was  inscribed  by  the  potter  with  a 
triangular  style.  Mr.  Birch  thinks  the  former  was  the  means 
used,  “ as  the  trouble  of  writing  upon  each  brick  would  have 
been  endless.”1  Mr.  Layard,  however,  is  of  a different  opinion.2 

In  speaking  of  the  Assyrian  writing,  some  mention  has  been 
made  of  the  terra-cotta  cylinders  and  tablets,  which  in  Assyria 
replaced  the  parchment  and  papyrus  of  other  nations,  being  the 
most  ordinary  writing  material  in  use  through  the  country.3 
The  purity  and  fineness  of  the  material  thus  employed  is  very 
remarkable,  as  well  as  its  strength,  of  which  advantage  was 
taken  to  make  the  cylinders  hollow,  and  thus  at  once  to  render 
them  cheaper  and  more  portable.  The  terra-cotta  of  the 
cylinders  and  tablets  is  sometimes  unglazed ; sometimes  the 
natural  surface  has  been  covered  with  a “ vitreous  silicious  gdaze 
or  white  coating.”4  The  colour  varies,  being  sometimes  a bright 
polished  brown,  sometimes  a pale  yellow,  sometimes  pink,  and 


5 Twenty-two  inches,  according  to 
Mr.  Birch  (p.  109). 

6 The  longest  are  14|  inches.  (See 
Ancient  Pottery , vol.  i.  p.  108.) 

7 Ibid.  p.  107.  8 Supra,  p.  71. 

9 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery,  vol.  i.  pp. 
15-18  ; Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , 

VOL.  I. 


1st  Series,  vol.  ii.  p.  97. 

10  Birch,  p.  134 ; Layard,  Nineveh  and 
its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  187. 

1 Birch,  p.  109.  2 Layard,  1.  s.  c. 

3 Supra,  pp.  263-266. 

4 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery, -vol.  i.  p.  113. 

2 c 


386 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


sometimes  a very  dark  tint,  nearly  black.5  The  most  usual 
colour  however  for  cylinders  is  pale  yellow,  and  for  tablets  light 


Assyrian  vases,  amphorae,  &c.  (after  Birch). 


red  or  pink.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  both  these  cases  the 
characters  were  impressed  separately 
by  the  hand,  a small  metal  style  or 
rod  being  used  for  the  purpose. 

Terra-cotta  vessels,  glazed  and  un- 
glazed, were  in  common  use  among 
the  Assyrians,  for  drinking  and  other 
domestic  purposes.  They  comprised 
vases,  lamps,  jugs,  amphorae,  saucers, 
jars,  &c.  The  material  of  the  vessels 
is  fine,  though  generally  rather  yellow 
in  tone.6  The  shapes  present  no  great 
novelty,  being  for  the  most  part  such 
as  are  found  both  in  the  old  Chaldaean 
tombs,7  and  in  ordinary  Roman  sepul- 
chres.8 Among  the  most  elegant  are 
the  funereal  (?)  urns  discovered  by 

Funereal  urn,  from  Khorsatad.  ^ Khorsabad;  which  are  egg_ 

shaped,  with  a small  opening  at  top,  a short  and  very  scanty 

5 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery , vol.  i.  p.  115.  6 Ibid.  p.  120.  7 Supra,  pp.  91,  92. 

8 Birch  v.  121. 


Chap.  VI. 


POTTERY. 


387 


pedestal,  and  two  raised  rings,  one  rather  delicately  chased,  by 
way  of  ornament.  Another  graceful  form  is  that  of  the  large 


Nestorian  and  Arab  workmen,  with  jar  discovered  at  Nimrud. 


jars  uncovered  at  Nimrud  (see  above),  of  which  Mr.  Layard 
gives  a representation.1  Still  more  taste- 
ful are  some  of  the  examples  which  occur 
upon  the  bas-reliefs,  and  seemingly  repre- 
sent earthen  vases.  Among  these  may 
be  particularised  a lustral  ewer  resting  in 
a stand  supported  by  bulls’  feet,  which 
appears  in  front  of  a temple  at  Khorsabad,2 
and  a wine  vase  (see  overleaf)  of  ample  dimensions,  which 


Lustral  ewer,  from  a bas- 
relief,  Khorsabad. 


1 Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  574.  2 See  Botta’s  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  ii.  Plates  141  and  1 62. 

2 c 2 


388 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


is  found  in  a banquet  scene  at  the  same  place.3  Some  of  the 
lamps  are  also  graceful  enough,  and  seem  to  be  the  prototypes 
out  of  which  were  developed  the  more  elaborate  productions  of 

the  Greeks.  Others  are  more 
simple,  being  without  orna- 
ment of  any  kind,  and  nearly 
resembling  a modern  teapot 
(see  No.  IV.).  The  glazed 
pottery  is,  for  tbe  most  part, 
tastefully  coloured.  An  am- 
phora, with  twisted  arms, 
found  at  Nimrud  (see  oppo- 
site), is  of  two  colours,  a 
warm  yellow,  and  a cold 
bluish  green.  The  green 
predominates  in  the  upper, 
the  yellow  in  the  under  por- 
tion ; but  there  is  a certain 
amount  of  blending  or  mot- 
tling in  the  mid-region,  which  has  a very  pleasant  effect.  A 
similarly  mottled  character  is  presented  by  two  other  amphorae 
from  the  same  place,  where  the  general  hue  is  a yellow  which 


Wine  vase,  from  a bas-relief,  Khorsabad. 


No.  I. 


No.  111. 


No.  II. 


Assyrian  clay-lamps. 


No.  IV. 


3 See  Botta’s  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  ii.  Plate  76 ; and  see  vol.  v.  p.  130. 


Chap.  VI. 


POTTERY— GLASS-WAKE. 


389 


varies  in  intensity,  and  the  mottling  is  with  a violet  bine.  In 
some  cases  the  colours  are  not  blended,  but  sharply  defined  by 
lines,  as  in  a curious  spouted 
cup  figured  by  Mr.  Layard,  and 
in  several  fragmentary  speci- 
mens.4 Painted  patterns  are 
not  uncommon  upon  the  glazed 
pottery,  though  upon  the  un- 
glazed they  are  scarcely  ever 
found.  The  most  usual  colours 
are  blue,  yellow,  and  white; 
brown,  purple,  and  lilac  have 
been  met  with  occasionally. 

These  colours  are  thought  to 
be  derived  chiefly  from  metallic 
oxides,  over  which  was  laid  as  a 
glazing  a vitreous  silicated  sub- 
stance.5 On  the  whole  porcelain 
of  this  fine  kind  is  rare  in  the  Assyrian  remains,  and  must  be 
regarded  as  a material  that  was  precious  and  used  by  few. 

Assyrian  glass  is  among  the  most  beautiful  of  the  objects 
which  have  been  exhumed.  M.  Botta  compared  it  to  certain 


Amphora,  with  twisted  arms  (Nimrud). 


Assyrian  glass  bottles  and  bowl  (after  Layard). 


fabrics  of  Venice  and  Bohemia,6  into  which  a number  of  different 
colours  are  artificially  introduced.  But  a careful  analysis  has 
shown  that  the  lovely  prismatic  hues  which  delight  us  in  the 
Assyrian  specimens,  varying  under  different  lights  with  all  the 


4 See  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Plate  85. 

5 Birch,  Ancient  Pottery , vol.  i.  p.  130.  6 Monument  de  Mnive,  vol.  v.  p.  173. 


390 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  YI. 


delicacy  and  brilliancy  of  the  opal,  are  due,  not  to  art,  but  to 
the  wonder-working  hand  of  time,  which,  as  it  destroys  the 
fabric,  compassionately  invests  it  with  additional  grace  and 
beauty.  Assyrian  glass  was  either  transparent,  or  stained  with 
a single  uniform  colour.7  It  was  composed  in  the  usual  way, 
by  a mixture  of  sand  or  silex  with  alkalis,  and,  like  the 
Egyptian,8  appears  to  have  been  first  rudely  fashioned  into 
shape  by  the  blow-pipe.  It  was  then  more  carefully  shaped, 
and,  where  necessary,  hollowed  out  by  a turning  machine,  the 

marks  of  which  are  sometimes  still 
visible.9  The  principal  specimens 
which  have  been  discovered  are  small 
bottles  and  bowls,  the  former  not 
more  than  three  or  four  inches  high, 
the  latter  from  four  to  five  inches  in 
diameter.  The  vessels  are  occasion- 
ally inscribed  with  the  name  of  a king, 
as  is  the  case  in  the  famous  vase  of 
Sargon  found  by  Mr.  Layard  at  Nim- 
rud  which  is  here  figured.  This  is  the 
GlaSs™gonX™  Nimr”dme  °f  earliest  known  specimen  of  transparent 
(after  Layard).  glass,  which  is  not  found  in  Egypt  until 

the  time  of  the  Psammetichi.  The  Assyrians  used  also  opaque 
glass,  which  they  coloured,  sometimes  red,  with  the  suboxide 
of  copper,  sometimes  white,  sometimes  of  other  hues.  They 
seem  not  to  have  been  able  to  form  masses  of  glass  of  any 
considerable  size;  and  thus  the  employment  of  the  material 
must  have  been  limited  to  a few  ornamental,  rather  than  useful, 
purposes.  A curious  specimen  is  that  of  a pipe  or  tube,  honey- 
combed externally,  which  Mr.  Layard  exhumed  at  Koyunjik, 
and  of  which  the  cut  on  next  page  is  a rough  representation. 

An  object  found  at  Nimrud,  in  close  connection  with  several 


7 An  elaborate  account  of  the  process 

whereby  the  Assyrian  glass  has  become 
partially  decomposed,  and  of  the  effects 
produced  by  the  decomposition,  will  be 
found  in  Mr.  Layard’s  Nineveh  and 

Babylon , Appendix,  pp.  674-676,  con- 


tributed to  that  work  by  Sir  David 
Brewster. 

8 Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , 1st 
Series,  vol.  iii.  pp.  88,  89. 

3 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  197. 


Cfiap.  VI. 


GLASS-WARE. 


391 


glass  vessels,1  is  of  a character  sufficiently  similar  to  render  its 
introduction  in  this  place  not  inappropriate.  This  is  a lens 
composed  of  rock  crystal,  about  an  inch 
and  a half  in  diameter,  and  nearly  an 
inch  thick,  having  one  plane  and  one 
convex  surface,  and  somewhat  rudely 
and  polished,  which,  however, 
gives  a tolerably  distinct  focus  at  the 
distance  of  4^  inches  from  the  plane 
side,  and  which  may  have  been  used 
either  as  a magnifying  glass  or  to  con- 
centrate the  rays  of  the  sun.  The  form 
is  slightly  oval,  the  longest  diameter 
being  1t6q  inch,  the  shortest  1T%  inch. 

The  thickness  is  not  uniform,  but 
greater  on  one  side  than  on  the  other. 

The  plane  surface  is  ill-polished  and 
scratched,  the  convex  one,  not  polished 
on  a concave  spherical  disc,  but  fa- 
shioned on  a lapidary’s  wheel,  or  by 
some  method  equally  rude.2  As  a 
burning  glass  the  lens  has  no  great 
power;  but  it  magnifies  fairly,  and  glass,  from  Koyunjik 
may  have  been  of  great  use  to  those  (after  Layard)- 

who  inscribed,  or  to  those  who  sought  to  decipher,  the  royal 
memoirs.3  It  is  the  only  object  of  the  kind  that  has  been  found 
among  the  remains  of  antiquity,  though  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  lenses  were  known  and  were  used  as  burning-glasses  by 
the  Greeks.4 * 

Some  examples  have  been  already  given  illustrating  the 
tasteful  ornamentation  of  Assyrian  furniture.  It  consisted,  so 
far  as  we  know,  of  tables,  chairs,  couches,  high  stools,  footstools, 


1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  197. 

2 See  the  description  furnished  to  Mr. 
Layard  by  Sir  David  Brewster.  ( Nineveh 
and  Babylon , p.  197,  note.) 

3 Vide  supra,  p.  263. 

4 This  is  evident  from  Aristophanes 

(Atm6.  746-749),  where  Strepsiades  pro- 


poses to  obliterate  his  debts  from  the 
waxen  tablets  on  which  they  are  in- 
scribed by  means  of  “ that  transparent 
stone  wherewith  fires  are  lighted.”  (tV 
\iQov  r^v  SicKfxzvrj,  o up’  rjs  7 b tt vp  airrovcri.') 
Compare  also  Theophrast.  De  Igne , 73. 


392 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


and  stands  with  shelves  to  hold  the  articles  needed  for  domestic 
purposes.  As  the  objects  themselves  have  in  all  cases  ceased 


No.  1. 


No.  2. 


to  exist,  leaving  behind  them  only  a few  fragments,  it  is 

necessary  to  have  recourse  to 
the  bas-reliefs  for  such  notices 
as  may  be  thence  derived  of 
their  construction  and  cha- 
racter. In  these  representa- 
tions the  most  ordinary  form 
of  table  is  one  in  which  the 
principle  of  our  campstools 
seems  to  be  adopted,  the  legs 
crossing  each  other  as  in  the 
woodcuts  above.  Only  two 
legs  are  represented,  but  we 
must  undoubtedly  regard 
these  two  as  concealing  two 
others  of  the  same  kind  at 
the  opposite  end  of  the  table. 
The  legs  ordinarily  terminate 
in  the  feet  of  animals,  some- 
times of  bulls,  but  more  com- 
monly of  horses.  Sometimes 
between  the  two  legs  we  see 
a species  of  central  pillar, 
which,  however,  is  not  traceable 
below  the  point  where  the  legs 


No.  II.  Assyrian  tables,  from  bas-reliefs 
(Koyunjik). 


No.  III.  Table,  ornamented  with  rams’ 
heads  (Koyunjik). 


cross  one  another.  The  pillar  itself  is  either  twisted  or  plain 


Chap.  VI.  ASSYRIAN  TABLES— THRONES  AND  CHAIRS. 


393 


(see  No.  3,  on  last  page).  Another  form  of  table,  less  often 
met  with,  but  simpler,  closely  resembles  the  common  table  of 


No.  IV.  Ornamented  table  (Khorsabad).  Three-legged  table  (Koyunjik). 


the  moderns.  It  has  merely  the  necessary  flat  top,  with  per- 
pendicular legs  at  the  corners.  The  skill  of  the  cabinet-makers 
enabled  them  to  dispense  in  most 
instances  with  cross-bars  (see  No. 

I.),  which  are,  however,  some- 
times seen  (see  No.  II.,  No.  III., 
and  No.  IV.),  uniting  the  legs  of 
this  kind  of  tables.  The  corners 
are  often  ornamented  with  lions’ 
or  rams’  heads,  and  the  feet  are 
frequently  in  imitation  of  some 
animal  form  (see  No.  III.  and 
No.  IV.).  Occasionally  we  find  a 
representation  of  a three-legged 
table,  as  the  above  specimen,  which 
is  from  a relief  at  Koyunjik.  The 
height  of  tables  appears  to  have 
been  greater  than  with  ourselves  ; 
the  lowest  reach  nearly  to  a man’s 
middle ; the  highest  are  level 
with  the  upper  part  of  the  chest. 

Assyrian  thrones  and  chairs 
were  very  elaborate.  The  throne 
of  Sennacherib  exhibited  on  its 
sides  and  arms  three  rows  of 
carved  figures,  one  above  another,  supporting  the  bars  with 


Sennacherib  on  his  throne  (Koyunjik). 


394 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


their  hands.  The  bars,  the  arms,  and  the  back,  were  patterned. 
The  legs  ended  in  a pine-shaped  ornament,  very  common  in 

Assyrian  furniture.  Over 
the  back  was  thrown  an  em- 
broidered cloth,  fringed  at 
the  end,  wdiich  hung  down 
nearly  to  the  floor.  A throne 
of  Sargon’s  was  adorned  on 
its  sides  with  three  human 
figures,  apparently  repre- 
sentations of  the  king,  below 
which  was  the  war-horse  of 
the  monarch,  caparisoned  as 
for  battle.5  Another  throne 
of  the  same  monarch’s  had 
two  large  and  four  small 
figures  of  men  at  the  side, 
while  the  back  was  sup- 
ported on  either  side  by  a human  figure  of  superior  dimensions.6 
The  use  of  chairs  with  high  backs,  like  these,  was  apparently 

confined  to  the  monarchs. 
Persons  of  less  exalted  rank 
were  content  to  sit  on  seats 


- ,1!#^ 

Arm-chair  or  throne  (Khorsabad). 


Assyrian  ornamented  seat  (Khorsabad). 

wrought  into  it  by  the  hammer. 


chairs,  with  a low  back  level 
with  the  arms.7 

Seats  of  this  kind,  whether 
thrones  or  chairs,  were  no 
doubt  constructed  mainly 
of  wood.  The  ornamental 
work  may,  however,  have 
been  of  bronze,  either  cast 
into  the  necessary  shape,  or 
The  animal  heads  at  the 


5 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  i. 
Plate  17. 

6 Ibid.  Plate  18. 

' In  the  series  from  which  this  repre- 


sentation is  taken  the  figures  appear 
seated  in  such  a way  as  would  imply 
that  the  actual  seat  was  level  with  the 
dotted  line  a b. 


Chap.  VI. 


ASSYRIAN  COUCHES  AND  FOOTSTOOLS. 


395 


ends  of  arms  seem  to  have  fallen  under  the  latter  description.8 
In  some  cases,  ivory  was  among  the  materials  used : it  has  been 
found  in  the  legs  of  a throne  at  Koyunjik,9  and  may  not  impro- 
bably have  entered  into  the  ornamentation  of  the  best  furniture 
very  much  more  generally. 

The  couches  which  we  find  represented  upon  the  sculptures 
are  of  a simple  character.  The 
body  is  flat,  not  curved ; the 
legs  are  commonly  plain,  and 
fastened  to  each  other  by  a 
cross-bar,  sometimes  terminat- 
ing in  the  favourite  pine-shaped 
ornament.  One  end  only  is 

raised,  and  this  usually  curves  Assyrian  couch,  from  a bas-relief, 
j -i  • • • 1 Koyunjik. 

inward  nearly  in  a semicircle. 

The  couches  are  decidedly  lower  than  the  Egyptian ; 10  and  do 
not,  like  them,  require  a stool  or  steps  in  order  to  ascend  them. 

Stools,  however,  are  used  with  the  chairs  or  thrones  of  which 
mention  was  made  above — lofty  seats,  where  such  a support  for 
the  sitter’s  feet  was  imperatively  required.  They  are  sometimes 


No.  I.  No.  II.  No.  in. 

Assyrian  footstools  (Koyunjik). 

plain  at  the  sides,  and  merely  cut  en  chevron  at  the  base ; some- 
times highly  ornamented,  terminating  in  lions’  feet  supported 
on  cones,  in  the  same1  (or  in  volutes)  supported  on  balls,  and 
otherwise  adorned  with  volutes,  lion  castings,  and  the  like. 
The  most  elaborate  specimen  is  the  stool  (No.  III.)  which 
supports  the  feet  of  Asshur-bani-pal’s  queen  on  a relief  brought 
from  the  North  Palace  at  Koyunjik,  and  now  in  the  National 


8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  199.  Series,  vol.  ii.  p.  201. 

9 Ibid.  p.  198.  1 See  the  woodcut  on  p.  393. 

10  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , 1st 


396 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


Collection.  Here  the  upper  corners  exhibit  the  favourite  gra- 
dines,  guarding  and  keeping  in  place  an  embroidered  cushion  ; 
the  legs  are  ornamented  with  rosettes  and  with  horizontal 
mouldings  ; they  are  connected  together  by  two  bars,  the  lower 
one  adorned  with  a number  of  double  volutes,  and  the  upper 
one  with  two  lions  standing  back  to  back ; the  stool  stands 
on  balls,  surmounted  first  by  a double  moulding,  and  then  by 
volutes. 

Stands  with  shelves  often  terminate,  like  other  articles  of 
furniture,  in  animals’  feet,  most  com- 
monly lions’,  as  in  the  accompany- 
ing specimens. 

Of  the  embroidered  robes  and  dra- 
peries of  the  Assyrians,  as  of  their 
furniture,  we  can  judge  only  by  the 
representations  made  of  them  upon 
the  bas-reliefs.  The  delicate  texture 
of  such  fabrics  has  prevented  them 
from  descending  to  our  day  even  in 
the  most  tattered  condition ; and  the 
ancient  testimonies  on  the  subject  are  for  the  most  part  too  remote 
from  the  times  of  the  Assyrians  to  be  of  much  value.2  Ezekiel’s 
notice3  is  the  only  one  which  comes  within  such  a period  of 
Assyria’s  fall  as  to  make  it  an  important  testimony,  and  even  from 
this  we  cannot  gather  much  that  goes  beyond  the  evidence  of  the 
sculptures.  The  sculptures  show  us  that  robes  and  draperies 


2 The  Greek  and  Roman  ideas  on  the 
subject  of  the  Assyrian  dress  were  pro- 
bably derived  from  Ctesias,  at  least 
mainly.  He  seems  to  have  ascribed  to 
Sardanapalus,  and  even  to  Semiramis, 
garments  of  great  magnificence  and  of 
delicate  fabric.  (See  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  6,  § 6, 
23,  § 1,  and  27,  § 3.)  But  he  did  not,  so 
far  as  we  know,  distinctly  speak  of  these 
garments  as  embroidered.  It  remained 
for  the  later  Roman  poets  to  determine 
that  the  colour  of  the  robes  was  purple, 
and  that  their  ornamentation  was  the 
work  of  the  needle. 

“ I’erf'usam  murice  vestem 
Assyria  hignatur  acu.” 

Claudian  xliv.  86,  87. 


These  rare  Assyrian  garments  were  said 
to  have  been  adopted  by  the  Medes,  and 
afterwards  by  the  Persians.  (Diod.  Sic. 
ii.  6,  § 6.)  They  were  probably  of  silk, 
which  was  produced  largely  in  Assyria 
(Plin.  H.  A.xi.  22),  whence  it  was  car- 
ried to  Rome  and  worn  both  by  men 
and  women  (ib.  xi.  23). 

3 Ezek.  xxvii.  23,  24 : “ Haran  and 
Canneh  and  Eden,  the  merchants  of 
Sheba,  Asskur,  and  Chilmad,  were  thy 
merchants.  These  were  thy  merchants 
in  all  sorts  of  things,  in  blue  clothes  and 
broidered  work  and  in  chests  of 

rich  apparel,  bound  with  cords  and  made 
of  cedar,  among  thy  merchandise.” 


Chap.  VI. 


ASSYRIAN  DRAPERIES. 


39 ; 


of  all  kinds  were  almost  always  more  or  less  patterned ; and 
this  patterning,  which  is  generally  of  an  extremely  elaborate 
kind,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  was  the  work  of  the  needle. 
Sometimes  the  ornamentation  is  confined  to  certain  portions  of 
garments,  as  to  the  ends  of  sleeves  and  the  bottoms  of  robes  or 
tunics ; at  others  it  is  extended  over  the  whole  dress.  This  is 
more  particularly  the  case  with  the  garments  of  the  kings, 
which  are  of  a magnificence  difficult  to  describe,  or  to  represent 
within  a narrow  compass.  One  or  two  specimens,  however, 
may  be  given  almost  at  random,  indicating  different  styles  of 


ornamentation  usual  in  the  royal  apparel.  Other  examples 
will  be  seen  in  the  many  illustrations  throughout  this  volume 
where  the  king  is  represented.4  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
earliest  representations  exhibit  the  most  elaborate  types  of  all, 
after  which  a reaction  seems  to  set  in — simplicity  is  affected — 
which,  however,  is  gradually  trenched  upon,  until  at  last  a 
magnificence  is  reached  little  short  of  that  which  prevailed  in 
the  age  of  the  first  monuments.  The  draperies  of  Asshur- 
izir-pal  in  the  north-west  palace  at  Nimrud,  are  at  once 


4 As  on  pp.  290,  292,  393,  &c.  of  this  volume. 


39» 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YT. 


more  minutely  laboured  and  more  tasteful  than  those  of  any 
later  time.  Besides  elegant  but  unmeaning  patterns,  they 
exhibit  human  and  animal  forms,  sacred  trees,  sphinxes, 
griffins,  winged  horses,  and  occasionally  bull-hunts  and  lion- 
hunts.  The  upper  part  of  this  king’s  dress  is  in  one  instance 
almost  covered  with  figures,  which  range  themselves  round 
a circular  breast  ornament,  whereof  the  cut  opposite  is  a repre- 
sentation. Elsewhere  his  apparel  is  less  superb,  and  indeed 
it  presents  almost  every  degree  of  richness,  from  the  wonderful 
embroidery  of  the  robe  just  mentioned  to  absolute  plainness,  in 


the  celebrated  picture  of  the  lion-hunt.5  With  Sargon,  the 
next  king  who  has  left  many  monuments,  the  case  is  remark- 
ably different.  Sargon  is  represented  always  in  the  same  dress 
— a long  fringed  robe,  embroidered  simply  with  rosettes,  which 
are  spread  somewhat  scantily  over  its  whole  surface.  Senna- 
cherib’s apparel  is  nearly  of  the  same  kind,  or,  if  anything, 
richer,  though  sometimes  the  rosettes  are  omitted.6  His  grand- 
son, Asshur-bani-pal,  also  affects  the  rosette  ornament,  but 
reverts  alike  to  the  taste  and  the  elaboration  of  the  early 
kings.  He  wears  a breast  ornament  containing  human  figures, 

5 Supra,  p.  344.  omission  may  be  from  mere  carelessness 

6 See  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  in  the  artist. 

Plate  77  ; 2nd  Series,  Plate  42.  The 


Chap.  VI. 


ASSYRIAN  DRAPERIES. 


399 


around  which  are  ranged  a number  of  minute  and  elaborate 
patterns. 

To  this  account  of  the  arts,  mimetic  and  other,  in  which  the 
Assyrians  appear  to  have  excelled,  it  might  be  expected  that 


there  should  be  added  a sketch  of  their  scientific  knowledge. 
On  this  subject,  however,  so  little  is  at  present  known,  while 
so  much  may  possibly  become  known  within  a short  time,  that 


400 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YT. 


it  seems  best  to  omit  it,  or  to  touch  it  only  in  the  lightest  and 
most  cursory  manner.  When  the  numerous  tablets  now  in  the 
British  Museum  shall  have  been  deciphered,  studied,  and  trans- 
lated, it  will  probably  be  found  that  they  contain  a tolerably 
full  indication  of  what  Assyrian  science  really  was  ; and  it 
will  then  be  seen  how  far  it  was  real  and  valuable,  in  what 
respects  mistaken  and  illusory.  At  present  this  mine  is  almost 
unworked,  nothing  more  having  been  ascertained  than  that 
the  subjects  whereof  the  tables  treat  are  various,  and  their 
apparent  value  very  different.  Comparative  philology  seems 
to  have  been  largely  studied,  and  the  works  upon  it  exhibit 
great  care  and  diligence.  Chronology  is  evidently  much  valued, 
and  very  exact  records  are  kept  whereby  the  lapse  of  time  can 
even  now  be  accurately  measured.  Geography  and  history 
have  each  an  important  place  in  Assyrian  learning;  while 
astronomy  and  mythology  occupy  at  least  as  great  a share  of 
attention.  The  astronomical  observations  recorded  are  thought 
to  be  frequently  inaccurate,  as  might  be  expected  when  there 
were  no  instruments,  or  none  of  any  great  value.  Mythology 
is  a very  favourite  subject,  and  appears  to  be  treated  most 
fully  ; but  hitherto  cuneiform  scholars  have  scarcely  penetrated 
below  the  surface  of  the  mythological  tablets,  baffled  by  the 
obscurity  of  the  subject  and  the  difficulty  of  the  dialect  in 
which  they  are  written.7 

On  one  point  alone,  belonging  to  the  domain  of  science, 
do  the  Assyrian  representations  of  their  life  enable  us  to 
comprehend,  at  least  to  some  extent,  their  attainments.  The 
degree  of  knowledge  which  this  people  possessed  on  the  subject 
of  practical  mechanics  is  illustrated  with  tolerable  fulness  in 
the  bas-reliefs,  more  especially  in  the  important  series  dis- 
covered at  Koyunjik,  where  the  transport  of  the  colossal  bulls 
from  the  quarry  to  the  palace  gateways  is  represented  in  the 
most  elaborate  detail.8  The  very  fact  that  they  were  able  to 


7 The  mythological  tablets  are  always 
in  the  Akkad  or  old  Chaldaean  language, 
and  in  very  few  instances  are  furnished 
even  with  a gloss  or  explanation  in  As- 
syrian. (See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson’s  Essay 

“On  the  Religion  of  the  Babylonians 


and  Assyrians  ” in  the  author’s  Hero- 
dotus, vol.  i.  p.  585,  note  2.) 

8 This  series  is  excellently  represented 
in  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 
Plates  10  to  17. 


Chap.  VI. 


EXTENT  OF  ASSYRIAN  SCIENCE. 


401 


transport  masses  of  stone,  many  tons  in  weight,  over  a con- 
siderable space  of  ground,  and  to  place  them  on  the  summit 
of  artificial  platforms  from  thirty  to  eighty  (or  ninety)  feet 
high,  would  alone  indicate  considerable  mechanical  knowledge. 
The  further  fact,  now  made  clear  from  the  bas-reliefs,  that  they 
wrought  all  the  elaborate  carving  of  the  colossi  before  they 
proceeded  to  raise  them  or  put  them  in  place,9  is  an  additional 
argument  of  their  skill,  since  it  shows  that  they  had  no  fear 
of  any  accident  happening  in  the  transport.  It  appears  from 
the  representations  that  they  placed  their  colossus  in  a standing 
posture,  not  on  a truck  or  waggon  of  any  kind,  but  on  a huge 
wooden  sledge,  shaped  nearly  like  a boat,  casing  it  with  an 
openwork  of  spars  or  beams,  which  crossed  each  other  at  right 
angles,  and  were  made  perfectly  tight  by  means  of  wedges.1 
To  avert  the  great  danger  of  the  mass  toppling  over  sideways, 
ropes  were  attached  to  the  top  of  the  casing,  at  the  point 
where  the  beams  crossed  one  another,  and  were  held  taut  by 
two  parties  of  labourers,  one  on  either  side  of  the  statue. 
Besides  these,  wooden  forks  or  props  were  applied  on  either  side 
to  the  second  set  of  horizontal  cross-beams,  held  also  by  men, 
whose  business  it  would  be  to  resist  the  least  inclination  of  the 
huge  stone  to  lean  to  one  side  more  than  to  the  other.  The 
front  of  the  sledge  on  which  the  colossus  stood  was  curved 
gently  upwards,  to  facilitate  its  sliding  along  the  ground,  and 
to  enable  it  to  rise  with  readiness  upon  the  rollers,  which  were 
continually  placed  before  it  by  labourers  just  in  front,  while 
others  following  behind  gathered  them  up  when  the  bulky  mass 
had  passed  over  them.  The  motive  power  was  applied  in  front 
by  four  gangs  of  men  who  held  on  to  four  large  cables,  at 
which  they  pulled  by  means  of  small  ropes  or  straps  fastened 
to  them,  and  passed  under  one  shoulder  and  over  the  other, 
an  arrangement  which  enabled  them  to  pull  by  weight 


0 Mr.  Layard  first  imagined  that  the 
contrary  was  the  case  ( Nineveh  and  its 
Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  318)  ; but  his  Ko- 
yunjik  discoveries  convinced  him  of  his 
error  (Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp.  105, 106). 

1 The  nineteenth  century  could  make 

VOL.  I. 


no  improvement  upon  this.  Mr.  Layard 
tells  us  that  il  precisely  the  same  frame- 
work was  used  for  moving  the  great 
sculptures  now  in  the  British  Museum.” 
( Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  112,  note.) 

2 D 


Assyrians  moving  a human-headed  bull,  partly  restored  from  a bas-relief  at  Koyunjik  (after  Layard). 


Chap.  VI. 


ASSYRIAN  MECHANICAL  SCIENCE. 


403 


as  much  as  by  muscular  strength,  as  the  annexed  figure  will 
plainly  show.  The  cables  appear  to  have  been  of  great  strength, 
and  are  fastened  carefully  to  four 
strong  projecting  pins:  two  near 
the  front,  two  at  the  back  part  of 
the  sledge,  by  a knot  so  tied  that  it 
would  be  sure  not  to  slip.  Finally, 
as  in  spite  of  the  rollers,  whose  use 
in  diminishing  friction,  and  so  fa- 
cilitating progress,  was  evidently 
well  understood,  and  in  spite  of  the 
amount  of  force  applied  in  front,  it  T , 

L • . Labourer  employed  in  drawing  a 

would  have  been  difficult  to  give  colossal  bull  (Koyunjik). 

the  first  impetus  to  so  great  a mass, 

a lever  was  skilfully  applied  behind  to  raise  the  hind  part  of  the 
sledge  slightly,  and  so  propel  it  forward,  while  to  secure  a sound 
and  firm  fulcrum,  wedges  of  wood 
were  inserted  between  the  lever  and 
the  ground.  The  greater  power  of  a 
lever  at  a distance  from  the  fulcrum 
being  known,  ropes  were  attached 
to  its  upper  end,  which  could  not 
otherwise  have  been  reached,  and 
the  lever  was  worked  by  means  of 

them.  Attachment  of  rope  to  sledge,  on 

which  the  bull  was  placed  for 
We  have  thus  unimpeachable  transport  (Koyunjik). 

evidence  as  to  the  mode  whereby 

the  conveyance  of  huge  blocks  of  stone  along  level  ground 
was  effected.  But  it  may  be  further  asked,  how  were  the 
blocks  raised  up  to  the  elevation  at  which  we  find  them 
placed  ? Upon  this  point  there  is  no  direct  evidence ; but  the 
probability  is  that  they  were  drawn  up  inclined  ways,  sloping 
gently  from  the  natural  ground  to  the  top  of  the  platforms. 
The  Assyrians  were  familiar  with  inclined  ways,2  which  they 
used  almost  always  in  their  attacks  on  walled  places,  and  which 


2 The  u banks  ” of  Scripture  (2  Kings  xix.  32  ; Is.  xxvii.  33). 

2 d 2 


404 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI. 


in  many  cases  they  constructed  either  of  brick  or  stone.3  The 
Egyptians  certainly  employed  them  for  the  elevation  of  large 

blocks ; 4 and  probably  in 
the  earlier  times  most 
nations  who  affected  mas- 
sive architecture  had  re- 
course to  the  same  simple 
but  uneconomical  plan.5 
The  crane  and  pulley 
were  applied  to  this  pur- 
pose later.  In  the  As- 
syrian sculptures  we  find 
no  application  of  either 
to  building,  and  no  in- 
stance at  all  of  the  two 
in  combination.  Still  each 
appears  on  the  bas-reliefs 
separately — the  crane  em- 
ployed for  drawing  water 
from  the  rivers  and  spread- 
ing it  over  the  lands,6  the 
pulley  for  lowering  and 
raising  the  bucket  in 
wells. 


Part  of  a bas-relief,  showing  a pulley  and  a 
warrior  cutting  a bucket  from  the  rope 
(after  Layard). 


We  must  conclude  from  these  facts  that  the  Assyrians  had 
made  considerable  advances  in  mechanical  knowledge,  and  were, 
in  fact,  acquainted,  more  or  less,  with  most  of  the  contrivances 
whereby  heavy  weights  have  commonly  been  moved  and  raised 
among  the  civilized  nations  of  Europe.  We  have  also  evidence 
of  their  skill  in  the  mechanical  processes  of  shaping  pottery 


a See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 2nd 
Series,  Plates  18  and  21. 

4  The  great  stones  of  which  the  pyra- 
mids were  built  were  certainly  raised 
from  the  alluvial  plain  to  the  rocky 
platform  on  which  they  stand  in  this 
way.  (Herod,  ii.  124 ; compare  Wil- 
kinson in  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  ii. 
p.  200,  note  6.)  Diodorus  declares  that 
the  pyramids  themselves  were  built  by 


the  help  of  mounds  (i.  62,  § 6).  This, 
however,  is  improbable. 

5 It  is  the  most  reasonable  supposition 
that  the  cross-stones  at  Stonehenge,  and 
the  cromlech  stones  so  common  in  Ireland, 
were  placed  in  the  positions  where  we 
now  find  them  by  means  of  inclined 
planes  afterwards  cleared  away. 

6 See  the  representation,  p.  215. 


Chap.  VI. 


EXTENT  OF  ASSYRIAN  SCIENCE. 


405 


and  glass,  of  casting  and  embossing  metals,  and  of  cutting 
intaglios  upon  hard  stones.7  Thus  it  was  not  merely  in  the 
ruder  and  coarser,  but  likewise  in  the  more  delicate  processes, 
that  they  excelled.  The  secrets  of  metallurgy,  of  dyeing, 
enamelling,  inlaying,  glass-blowing,  as  well  as  most  of  the  ordi- 
nary manufacturing  processes,  were  known  to  them.  In  all  the 
common  arts  and  appliances  of  life,  they  must  be  pronounced 
at  least  on  a par  with  the  Egyptians,  while  in  taste  they 
greatly  exceeded,  not  that  nation  only,  but  all  the  Orientals. 
Their  “ high  art  ” is  no  doubt  much  inferior  to  that  of  Greece  ; 
but  it  has  real  merit,  and  is  most  remarkable,  considering  the 
time  when  it  was  produced.  It  has  grandeur,  dignity,  boldness, 
strength,  and  sometimes  even  freedom  and  delicacy;  it  is  honest 
and  painstaking,  unsparing  of  labour,  and  always  anxious  for 
truth.  Above  all,  it  is  not  lifeless  and  stationary,  like  the  art 
of  the  Egyptians  and  the  Chinese,  but  progressive  and  aiming 
at  improvement.8  To  judge  by  the  advance  over  previous 
works  which  we  observe  in  the  sculptures  of  the  son  of  Esar- 
haddon,  it  would  seem  that  if  Assyria  had  not  been  assailed  by 
barbaric  enemies  about  his  time,  she  might  have  anticipated  by 
above  a century  the  finished  excellence  of  the  Greeks. 


7 It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
Assyrians  cut  not  merely  the  softer  ma- 
terials, as  serpentine  and  alabaster,  but 

the  gems  known  technically  as  “ hard 
stones  ” — agate,  jasper,  quartz,  sienite, 


amazon  stone,  and  the  like.  (See  King’s 
Ancient  Gems , p.  127.) 

8 See  the  summary  on  this  subject  in 
the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  i. ; Essay  yii. 
§ 42. 


4 o6 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

MANNERS  AND  CUSTOMS. 

“ Whose  arrows  are  sharp,  and  all  their  hows  bent ; their  horses’  hoofs 
shall  be  counted  like  flint,  and  their  wheels  like  a whirlwind.” — Isaiah  v.  28. 

In  reviewing,  so  far  as  our  materials  permit,  tlie  manners  and 
customs  of  the  Assyrians,  it  will  be  convenient  to  consider  sepa- 
rately their  warlike  and  their  peaceful  usages.  The  sculptures 
furnish  very  full  illustration  of  the  former,  while  on  the  latter 
they  throw  light  far  more  sparingly. 

The  Assyrians  fought  in  chariots,  on  horseback,  and  on  foot. 
Like  most  ancient  nations,  as  the  Egyptians,1  the  Greeks  in  the 
heroic  times,2  the  Canaanites,3  the  Syrians,4  the  Jews  and 
Israelites,5  the  Persians,6  the  Gauls,7  the  Britons,8  and  many 
others,9  the  Assyrians  preferred  the  chariot  as  most  honourable, 
and  probably  as  most  safe.  The  king  invariably  went  out  to 
war  in  a chariot,  and  always  fought  from  it,  excepting  at  the 
siege  of  a town,  when  he  occasionally  dismounted  and  shot  his 
arrows  on  foot.  The  chief  state-officers  and  other  personages  of 
high  rank  followed  the  same  practice.  Inferior  persons  served 
either  as  cavalry,  or  as  foot-soldiers. 

The  Assyrian  war-chariot  is  thought  to  have  been  made  of 
wood.10  Like  the  Greek  and  the  Egyptian,  it  appears  to  have 
been  mounted  from  behind,  where  it  was  completely  open,  or 


1 Gen.  xli.  43  ; Ex.  xiv.  7-28  ; 2 K. 
xviii.  24 ; Jer.  xlvi.  9 ; &c.  Compare 
Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  1st  Series, 
vol.  i.  pp.  335  et  seqq. 

2 Horn.  II.  iii.  29 ; iv.  366,  &c.  Hes. 
Scut.  Here.  306-309 ; JEsch.  Sept.  c.  Th. 
138,  191,  &c. 

3 Josh.  xvii.  18 ; Judg.  i.  19  and  iv.  3. 

4 2 Sam.  x.  18  ; 2 K.  vi.  14,  15. 

3 1 Sam.  viii.  11,  12;  1 K.  iv.  26  ; x. 

26  ; xvi.  9 ; xxii.  34,  &c. 

* Herod,  vii.  40 ; iEsch.  Pers.  86 ; 

Xen.  Anab.  i.  8,  § 10 ; Arr.  Exp.  Alex. 


ii.  11  ; iii.  11. 

7 Cass.  De  Bell.  Gall.  iv.  33. 

8 Tacit.  Agric.  § 12,  and  § 35. 

9 As  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  xiii.  5), 
the  Hittites  (1  K.  x.  29  ; 2 K.  vii.  6), 
the  Susianians  or  Elamites  (Is.  xxii.  6), 
the  Lydians  (iEsch.  Pers.  45-48),  the 
wild  African  tribes  near  Cyrene  (Herod, 
iv.  189  ; vii.  86),  and  the  Indians  of  the 
Punjab  region  (ibid. ; and  Arrian,  Exp. 
Alex.  v.  15). 

10  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  349. 


Chap.  VII. 


WAR  CUSTOMS— CHARIOTS. 


407 


closed  only  by  means  of  a shield,  which  (as  it  seems)  could  be 
hung  across  the  aperture.  It  was  completely  panelled  at  the 
sides,  and  often  highly  ornamented,  as  will  be  seen  from  the 
various  illustrations  given  in  this  chapter.  The  wheels,  were 
two  in  number,  and  were 
placed  far  back,  at  or  very 
near  the  extreme  end  of 
the  body,  so  that  the  weight 
pressed  considerably  upon 
the  pole,  as  was  the  case 
also  in  Egypt.11  They  had 
remarkably  broad  felloes, 
thin  and  delicate  spokes,  Assyrian  war-chariot  (Koyunjik). 

and  small  or  moderate- 
sized axles.  The  number  of  the  spokes  was  either  six  or  eight. 
The  felloes  appear  to  tave  been  formed  of  three  distinct  circles 
of  wood,  the  middle  one  being  the  thinnest,  and  the  outer  one 


No.  I.  Chariot-wheel  of  the  early  period. 


No.  II.  Chariot-wheel  of  the  middle  period. 


far  the  thickest  of  the  three.  Sometimes  these  circles  were  fast- 
ened together  externally  by  bands  of  metal,  hatchet-shaped.  In 
one  or  two  instances  we  find  the  outermost  circle  divided  by 
cross-bars,  as  if  it  had  been  composed  of  four  different  pieces. 


11  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , 1st 
Series,  vol.  i.  p.  343.  In  the  Greek  and 
Roman  chariots,  on  the  contrary,  the 


axle-tree  was  placed  about  midway  in 
the  body. 


408  the  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  TIE 

Occasionally  there  is  a fourth  circle,  which  seems  to  represent  a 
metal  tire  outside  the  felloe,  whereby  it  was  guarded  from 
injury.  This  tire  is  either  plain  or  ornamented. 

The  wheels  were  attached 
to  an  axle-tree,  about  which 
they  revolved,  in  the  usual 
manner.  The  body  was  placed 
directly  upon  the  axle-tree 
and  upon  the  pole,  without 
the  intervention  of  any  springs. 
The  pole  started  from  the 
middle  of  the  axle-tree,  and, 
passing  below  the  floor  of  the 
body  in  a horizontal  direction, 
thence  commonly  curved  up- 
wards till  it  had  risen  to 
about  half  the  height  of  the  body,  when  it  was  again  horizontal 
for  a while,  once  more  curving  upwards  at  the  end.  It  usually 
terminated  in  an  ornament,  which  was  sometimes  the  head  of  an 


animal — a bull,  a horse,  or  a duck — sometimes  a more  elaborate 
and  complicated  work  of  art.  Now  and  then  the  pole  continued 
level  with  the  bottom  of  the  body  till  it  had  reached  its  full 


Chap.  VII. 


WAR-CHARIOTS. 


409 


projection,  and  then  rose  suddenly  to  the  height  of  the  top  of 
the  chariot.  It  was  often  strengthened  by  one  or  more  thin 
bars,  probably  of  metal,  which  united  it  to  the  upper  part  of 
the  chariot-front.12 

Chariots  were  drawn  either  by  two  or  three,  never  by  four, 
horses.  They  seem  to  have  had  but  a single  pole.1  Where 
three  horses  were  used,  one  must  therefore  have  been  attached 
merely  by  a rope  or  thong,  like  the  side  horses  of  the  Greeks,2 
and  can  scarcely  have  been  of  much  service  for  drawing  the 
vehicle.  He  seems  rightly  regarded  as  a supernumerary,  in- 
tended to  take  the  place  of  one  of  the  others,  should  either  be  dis- 
abled by  a wound  or  accident.3  It  is  not  easy  to  determine  from 
the  sculptures  how  the  two  draught  horses  were  attached  to  the 
pole.  Where  chariots  are  represented  without  horses,  we  find 
indeed  that  they  have  always  a cross-bar  or  yoke;4  but  where 
horses  are  represented  in  the  act  of  drawing  a chariot,  the  cross- 
bar commonly  disappears  altogether.  It  would  seem  that  the 
Assyrian  artists,  despairing  of  their  ability  to  represent  the  yoke 
properly  when  it  was  presented  to  the  eye  endwise,  preferred, 
for  the  most  part,  suppressing  it  wholly  to  rendering  it  in  an 
unsatisfactory  manner.  Probably  a yoke  did  really  in  every  case 
pass  over  the  shoulders  of  the  two  draught  horses,  and  was 
fastened  by  straps  to  the  collar  which  is  always  seen  round 
their  necks. 

These  yokes,  or  cross-bars,  were  of  various  kinds.  Sometimes 


12  See  the  representations  of  entire  cha- 
riots given  below,  pp.  4]  1,  412,  and  413. 

1 This  was  the  case  also  with  the 
Greek  chariots.  The  chariots  of  the 
Lydians,  according  to  iEschylus  (Pers. 
45-47),  had  two  and  even  three  poles 
(Sippoyd  re  /cat  Tpippvjxa  T6A.17).  In  the 
Assyrian  sculptures  there  is  one  repre- 
sentation of  what  seems  to  he  a chariot 
with  two  poles  (Layard,  Monuments  of 
Nineveh , 2nd  Series,  PI.  24) ; but  perhaps 
the  Intention  was  to  represent  two  cha- 
riots, one  partially  concealing  the  other. 

* Zeipaioi,  or  aeipacpopoi,  ^ rope- 
bearers,”  from  creipd,  “a  cord  or  rope.” 
(See  Soph.  Electr.  722  ; Eurip.  Iph.  A. 
223 ; Here.  F.  446 ; Schol.  ad  Aristoph. 


Nub.  1302 ; Isid.  Orig.  xviii.  35,  &c.  : 
and  compare  the  article  on  Currus,  in 
Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman 
Antiquities , p.  379,  2nd  edition.) 

3 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  350. 

4 Generally  the  yoke  is  exhibited  with 
great  clearness,  being  drawn  in  full,  at 
right  angles  to  the  pole,  or  nearly  so, 
despite  the  laws  of  perspective.  Some- 
times, however,  as  in  Sennacherib’s  cha- 
riot (figured  below,  p.  413,  No.  II.),  we 
find  in  the  place  where  we  should  expect 
the  yoke  a mere  circle  marked  out  upon 
the  pole,  which  represents  probably  one 
end  of  the  yoke,  or  possibly  the  hole 
through  which  it  passed. 


4io 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


End  of  pole,  with  cross-bar,  after  Botta  (Khorsabad). 


they  appear  to  have  consisted  of  a mere  slight  circular  bar, 
probably  of  metal,  which  passed  through  the  pole,5  sometimes  of 
a thicker  spar,  through  which  the  pole  itself  passed.  In  this 

latter  case  the  extre- 
mities were  occasion- 
ally adorned  with 
heads  of  animals.  The 
most  common  kind  of 
yoke  exhibits  a double 
curve,  so  as  to  re- 
semble a species  of 
bow  unstrung.  Now 
and  then  a specimen 
is  found  very  curiously 
complicated,  being  formed  of  a bar  curved  strongly  at  either 
end,  and  exhibiting  along  its  course  four  other  distinct  curva- 
tures having  opposite  to  them  apertures  resembling  eyes,  with 
an  upper  and  a lower  eyelid.  It  has  been  suggested  that  this 

yoke  belonged  to  a 
four  - horse  chariot, 
and  that  to  each  of 
the  four  eyes  (a  a a a) 
there  was  a steed  at- 
tached ; 6 but,  as  no 
representation  of  a 
four- horse  chariot  has 
been  found,  this  sug- 
gestion must  be  re- 
garded as  inadmis- 
sible. The  probability 
seems  to  be  that  this  yoke,  like  the  others,  was  for  two  horses, 
on  whose  necks  it  rested  at  the  points  marked  b b,  the  aper- 
tures (c  c c c)  lying  thus  on  either  side  of  the  animals’  necks, 
and  furnishing  the  means  whereby  the  yoke  was  fastened  to  the 


End  of  pole,  with  curved  yoke  (Koyunjik). 


5 See  the  pole  ending  in  a horse’s  head  6 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  v. 
on  p.  408,  and  compare  that  to  which  re-  p.  90. 

ference  is  made  in  the  last  note. 


Chap.  VII. 


WAE-CHAKIOTS. 


41 1 


collar.  It  is  just  possible  that  we  have  in  the  sculptures  of  the 
later  period  a representation  of  the  extremities  (d  d)  of  this 


End  of  pole,  with  elaborate  cross-bar  or  yoke  (Khorsabad). 

kind  of  yoke,  since  in  them  a curious  curve  appears  sometimes 
on  the  necks  of  chariot-horses,  just  above  the  upper  end  of  the 
collar.7 

Assyrian  chariots  are  exceedingly  short ; but,  apparently, 
they  must  have  been  of  a considerable  width.  They  contain 
two  persons  at  the  least ; and  this  number  is  often  increased  to 
three,  and  sometimes  even  to  four.  The  warrior  who  fights  from 


Assyrian  chariot  containing  four  warriors  (Koyunjik). 


a chariot  is  necessarily  attended  by  his  charioteer ; and,  where 
be  is  a king,  or  a personage  of  high  importance,  he  is  accom- 
panied by  a second  attendant,  who  in  battle-scenes  always  bears 
a shield,  with  which  he  guards  the  person  of  his  master.  Some- 


7 See  below,  and  compare  the  representation  of  Sargon’s  chariot,  p.  294. 


412 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


times,  though  rarely,  four  persons  are  seen  in  a chariot — the 
king  or  chief,  the  charioteer,  and  two  guards,  who  protect  the 
monarch  on  either  side  with  circular  shields  or  targes.8  The 
charioteer  is  always  stationed  by  the  side  of  the  warrior,  not  (as 
frequently  with  the  Greeks9)  behind  him.  The  guards  stand 
behind,  and,  owing  to  the  shortness  of  the  chariot,  must  have 
experienced  some  difficulty  in  keeping  their  places.  They  are 
evidently  forced  to  lean  backwards  from  want  of  room,  and 
would  probably  have  often  fallen  out,  had  they  not  grasped  with 
one  hand  a rope  or  strap  firmly  fixed  to  the  front  of  the 
vehicle.10 

There  are  two  principal  types  of  chariots  in  the  Assyrian 
sculptures,  which  may  be  distinguished  as  the  earlier  and  the 


No.  I.  Assyrian  war-chariot  of  the  early  period  (Nimrud). 


later.11  The  earlier  are  comparatively  low  and  short.  The 
wheels  are  six-spoked,  and  of  small  diameter.  The  body  is 
plain,  or  only  ornamented  by  a border,  and  is  rounded  in  front, 
like  the  Egyptian 1 and  the  classical  chariots.8  Two  quivers  are 


8 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  ii. 
PI.  92. 

9 Dictionary  of  Antiquities , vol.  i.  pp. 
101,  379,  &c. 

10  See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  PI.  22. 

11  The  earlier  belong  to  the  time  of 
Asshur-izir-pal  ab.  b.c.  900  ; the  later 
to  the  times  of  Sargon,  Sennacherib, 
and  Asshur-bani-pal  (Esarhaddon’s  son), 


about  b.c.  720-660.  Sometimes,  but 
very  rarely,  a chariot  of  the  old  type 
is  met  with  in  the  second  period.  (See 
Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 2nd 
Series,  PL  24.) 

1 Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  1st 
Series,  vol.  i.  p.  345. 

2 Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Antiquities, 
pp.  378,  379,  2nd  ed. 


Chap.  VII. 


WAR-CHARIOTS. 


413 


suspended  diagonally  at  the  side  of  the  body,3  while  a rest  for 
a spear,  commonly  fashioned  into  the  shape  of  a human  head, 
occupies  the  upper  comer  at  the  back.  From  the  front  of  the 
body  to  the  further  end  of  the  pole,  which  is  generally  patterned 
and  terminates  in  the  head  and  neck  of  a bull  or  a duck,  ex- 
tends an  ornamented  structure,  thought  to  have  been  of  linen  or 
silk  stitched  upon  a framework  of  wood,4  which  is  very  conspi- 
cuous in  the  representations.  A shield  commonly  hangs  behind 
these  chariots,  perhaps  closing  the  entrance ; and  a standard  is 
sometimes  fixed  in  them  towards  the  front,  connected  with  the 
end  of  the  pole  by  a rope  or  bar.5 

The  later  chariots  are  loftier  and  altogether  larger  than  the 


No.  H.  Assyrian  war-chariot  of  the  later  period  (Koyunjik). 


earlier.  The  wheel  is  eight-spoked,  and  reaches  as  high  as  the 
shoulders  of  the  horses,  which  implies  a diameter  of  about  five 
feet.  The  body  rises  a foot,  or  rather  more,  above  this  ; and  the 
riders  thus  from  their  elevated  position  command  the  whole 
battle-field.  The  body  is  not  rounded,  but  made  square  in 


3 See  the  Woodcut  No.  I.,  and  com- 
pare p.  344.  Each  quiver  held  also  a 
small  axe  or  hatchet.  The  arrangement 
of  the  quivers  resembles  that  usual  in 
Egypt  (Wilkinson,  vol.  i.  p.  346). 

4 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  350.  Another  conjecture  is 
that  the  ornament  in  question  is  really  a 

flap  of  leather,  which  extended  horizon- 


tally from  the  horses’  shoulders  to  the 
chariot-rim,  and  served  the  purpose  of 
the  modern  splash-board.  The  artists, 
unskilled  in  perspective,  would  be  obliged 
to  substitute  the  perpendicular  for  the 
horizontal  position. 

5 See  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series, 
Pis.  14,  22,  and  27. 


414 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


front ; it  has  no  quivers  attached  to  it  externally,  but  has,  in- 
stead, a projection  at  one,  or  both,  of  the  corners,  which  seems 
to  have  served  as  an  arrow-case.6  This  projection  is  commonly 
patterned,  as  is  in  many  cases  the  entire  body  of  the  chariot, 
though  sometimes  the  ornamentation  is  confined  to  an  elegant 
but  somewhat  scanty  border.  The  poles  are  plain,  not  patterned, 
sometimes,  however,  terminating  in  the  head  of  a horse ; there 
is  no  ornamental  framework  connecting  them  with  the  chariot 
but  in  its  stead  we  see  a thin  bar,  attached  to  which,  either 
above  or  below,  there  is  in  most  instances  a loop,  whereto  we 
may  suppose  that  the  reins  were  occasionally  fastened.7  No 
shield  is  suspended  behind  these  chariots;  but  we  sometimes 
observe  an  embroidered  drapery  hanging  over  the  back,  in  a 
way  which  would  seem  to  imply  that  they  were  closed  behind, 
at  any  rate  by  a cross-bar. 

The  trappings  of  the  chariot-horses  belonging  to  the  two 
periods  are  not  very  different.  They  consist  principally  of  a 
headstall,  a collar,  a breast-ornament,  and  a sort  of  huge  tassel 
pendant  at  the  horse’s  side.  The  headstall  was  formed  com- 


6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  ii.  p.  352.  The  feathers  of  the  arrows 
are  sometimes  distinctly  visible.  (See 
the  woodcut  on  preceding  page.) 

7 If  the  white  obelisk  from  Koyunjik 
now  in  the  British  Museum  is  rightly  1 
ascribed  to  Asshur-izir-pal,  the  father  of 
the  Black-Obelisk  king,  it  would  appear 
that  the  change  from  the  older  to  the 


later  chariot  began  in  his  time.  The 
vehicles  on  that  monument  are  of  a 
transition  character.  They  have  the  thin 
bar  with  the  loop,  and  have  in  most  in- 
stances wheels  with  eight  spokes ; but 
their  proportions  are  like  those  of  the 
early  chariots,  and  they  have  the  two 
transverse  quivers. 


Assyrian  chariot  of  the  transition  period  (Koyunjik). 


Chap.  YII. 


TRAPPINGS  OF  CHARIOT-HORSES. 


415 


monly  of  three  straps:  one  was  attached  to  the  bit  at  either 
end,  and  passed  behind  the  ears  over  the  neck  ; another,  which 
was  joined  to  this  above,  encircled  the  smallest  part  of  the 
neck ; while  a third,  crossing  the  first  at  right  angles,  was  car- 
ried round  the  forehead  and  the  cheek-bones.8  At  the  point 
where  the  first  and  second  joined,  or  a little  in  front  of  this, 
rose  frequently  a waving  plume,  or  a crest  composed  of  three 
huge  tassels,  one  above  another ; while  at  the  intersection  of 
the  second  and  third  was  placed  a rosette9  or  other  suitable 
ornament.  The  first  strap  was  divided  where  it  approached  the 
bit  into  two  or  three  smaller  straps,  which  were  attached  to  the 
bit  in  different  places.  A fourth  strap  sometimes  passed  across 
the  nose  from  the  point  where  the  first  strap  subdivided.  All 
the  straps  were  frequently  patterned;  the  bit  was  sometimes 
shaped  into  an  animal  form  ; 10  and  streamers  occasionally  floated 
from  the  nodding  plume  or  crest  which  crowned  the  heads  of 
the  war-steeds. 

The  collar  is  ordinarily  represented  as  a mere  broad  band 
passing  round  the  neck,  not  at  the  withers  (as  with  ourselves), 
but  considerably  higher  up,  almost  midway  between  the  withers 
and  the  cheek-bone.  Sometimes  it  is  of  uniform  width,11  while 
often  it  narrows  greatly  as  it  approaches  the  back  of  the  neck. 
It  is  generally  patterned,  and  appears  to  have  been  a mere  flat 
leathern  band.  It  is  impossible  to  say  in  what  exact  way  the 
pole  was  attached  to  it,  though  in  the  later  sculptures  we  have 
elaborate  representations  of  the  fastening.  The  earlier  sculp- 
tures seem  to  append  to  the  collar  one  or  more  patterned  straps, 
which,  passing  round  the  horse’s  belly  immediately  behind  the 
fore  legs,  served  to  keep  it  in  place,  while  at  the  same  time  they 
were  probably  regarded  as  ornamental ; but  under  the  later 
kings  these  belly-bands  were  either  reduced  to  a single  strap, 
or  else  dispensed  with  altogether. 


8 See  the  woodcuts  on  pp.  407  and 
416. 

9 Rosettes  in  ivory,  mother  of  pCarl, 
and  bronze,  which  may  have  belonged 

to  the  harness  of  horses,  were  found  in 

great  abundance  by  Mr.  Layard  at  Nim- 


rud  ( Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  177). 

10  See  the  representation  which  forms 
the  ornamented  head  of  a chariot-pole, 
supra,  p.  408. 

11  This  is  especially  the  case  in  the 
sculptures  of  the  early  period. 


4i  6 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


The  breast-ornament  consists  commonly  of  a fringe,  more  or 
less  complicated.  The  simplest  form,  which  is  that  of  the  most 
ancient  times,  exhibits  a patterned  strap  with  a single  row  of  long 

tassels  pendant  from 
it,  as  in  the  annexed 
representation.  At  a 
later  date  we  find  a 
double,  and  even  a 
triple  row  of  tassels.1 

The  pendant  side- 
ornament  is  a very 

Assyrian  chariot  of  the  early  period  (Nimrud).  Conspicuous  portion  of 

the  trappings.  It  is 
attached  to  the  collar  either  by  a long  straight  strap,  or  by  a 
circular  band  which  falls  on  either  side  of  the  neck.  The  upper 
extremity  is  often  shaped  into  the  form  of  an  animal’s  head,  below 

which  comes  most 
commonly  a circle 
or  disk,  ornamented 
with  a rosette,  a Mal- 
tese cross,  a winged 
bull,  or  other  sacred 
emblem,  while  below 
the  circle  hang  huge 
tassels  in  a single  row 
or  smaller  ones  ar- 
ranged in  several  rows. 
In  the  sculptures  of 

Chariot-horse  protected  by  clothing  (Koyunjik).  Sargon  at  KllOrsabad, 

the  tassels  of  both  the 
breast  and  side  ornaments  were  coloured,  the  tints  being  in 
most  cases  alternately  red  and  blue.2 

Occasionally  the  chariot-horses  were  covered  from  the  ears 
almost  to  the  tail  with  rich  cloths,  magnificently  embroidered 


1 Supra,  p.  294.  In  one  case  the  rows  of  tassels  amount  to  seven  (Layard,  Monu- 
ments, 2nd  Series,  PI.  42). 

2 See  p.  363. 


Chap.  VII. 


TRAPPINGS  OF  CHARIOT-HORSES. 


417 


over  their  whole  surface.3  These  cloths  encircled  the  neck, 
which  they  closely  fitted,  and,  falling  on  either  side  of  the  body, 
were  then  kept  in  place  by  means  of  a broad  strap  round  the 
rump  and  a girth  under  the  belly.4 

A simpler  style  of  clothing  chariot-horses  is  found  towards 
the  close  of  the  later  period,  where  we  observe,  below  the  collar, 


Head  of  a chariot-horse,  showing  collar  with  bells  attached  (Koyunjik). 


a sort  of  triple  breast-plate,  and  over  the  rest  of  the  body  a 
plain  cloth,  square  cut,  with  flaps  descending  at  the  arms  and 
quarters,  which  is  secured  in  its  place  by  three  narrow  straps 
fastened  on  externally.5  The  earlier  kind  of  clothing  has  the 


3 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  PI.  28  ; or  his  Nineveh  and  its  Re- 
mains,, vol.  ii.  opp.  p.  350. 

4 Mr.  Layard  speaks  of  three  straps, 
one  of  which  “ passed  round  the  breast  ” 

{Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  355)  ; 
but  the  breast-strap,  to  which  he  alludes, 
has  no  connexion  with  the  clothes,  and 


occurs  equally  on  unclothed  horses  of  the 
early  period.  (See  the  representation  on 
p.  416.) 

5  The  third  strap  here  is  on  the  back, 
just  above  the  quarters.  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  it  could  have  been  of  any 
service. 


41 8 THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  VII. 

appearance  of  being  for  ornament ; but  this  looks  as  if  it  was 
meant  solely  for  protection. 

Besides  the  trappings  already  noticed,  the  Assyrian  chariot- 
horses  had  frequently  strings  of  beads  suspended  round  their 
necks,  between  the  ears  and  the  collar ; they  had  also,  not  un- 
frequentlv,  tassels  or  bells  attached  to  different  parts  of  the 
headstall;  and  finally  they  had,  in ‘the  later  period,  most  com- 

the  forehead,  which  covered 
almost  the  whole  space  be- 
tween the  ears  and  the  eyes, 
and  was  composed  of  a num- 
ber of  minute  bosses,  coloured, 
like  the  tassels  of  the  breast 
ornament,6  alternately  red 
and  blue. 

Each  horse  appears  to  have 
been  driven  by  two  reins 7 — 
one  attached  to  either  end  of 
the  bit  in  the  ordinary  man- 
ner, and  each  passed  through 
a ring  or  loop  in  the  harness, 
whereby  the  rein  was  kept  down  and  a stronger  purchase  secured 
to  the  driver.  The  shape  of  the  bit  within  the  mouth,  if  we  may 


monly,  a curious  ornament  upon 


6 Supra,  p.  416.  For  representations 
of  the  ornament  in  question,  see  supra, 
p.  294,  and  infra,  p.  425. 

Yet  sometimes,  where  there  are  three 
horses,  we  find  eight  reins  (Layard, 
Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis.  13  and  14)  ; 
and  often,  where  there  are  but  two 
horses,  we  see  six  reins.  (See  above,  p. 
294  ; and  compare  Layard,  Monuments, 
1st  Series,  Plates  72  and  80  ; 2nd 
Series,  Plates  23,  24,  29,  42,  &c.)  I 
have  sometimes  doubted  whether  the 
Assyrians  of  the  later  period  did  not 
really  drive  three  horses,  while  the 
artists  economised  their  labour  by  only 
representing  two.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that  over  the  two  heads  there  are  very 
often  represented  three  plumes  (Botta, 
Monument,  Pis.  53,  58,  65,  &c. ; Layard, 
Monuments,  1st  Series,  PI.  72),  and  that 
the  practice  of  economy  by  the  artists 


is  indubitable.  For  instance,  they  often 
show  but  one,  and  rarely  more  than  two, 
of  the  six  reins  between  the  necks  and 
mouths  of  the  chariot-horses,  where  all 
six  would  have  been  visible;  and  they 
sometimes  even  suppress  the  second  horse 
in  a chariot  (supra,  p.  416  ; Layard,  Mo- 
numents, 2nd  Series,  Pis.  29,  42,  and  47). 
It  is,  however,  on  the  whole,  perhaps 
most  probable  that  the  three  plumes 
and  the  six  reins  are  traditional,  and 
held  their  place  in  drawings  when  they 
had  gone  out  of  use  in  reality.  Other- 
wise we  should  probably  have  had  some 
distinct  evidence  of  the  continued  use 
of  the  third  horse. 

Note  that  when  Sennacherib’s  horses 
are  being  taken  from  his  chariot  to  cross 
a river  ( Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI.  41), 
they  are  clearly  but  two  in  number,  and 
employ  but  two  grooms. 


Chap.  VII. 


BITS  OF  CHARIOT-HORSES. 


419 


judge  by  the  single  instance  of  an  actual  bit  which  remains  to 
us,  bore  a near  resemblance  to  the  modern  snaffle.  Externally 


Bits  of  chariot-horses  (Nimrud). 


the  bit  was  large,  and  in  most  cases  clumsy — a sort  of  cross-bar 
extending  across  the  whole  side  of  the 
horse’s  face,  commonly  resembling  a 
double  axe-head,  or  a hammer.  Occa- 
sionally the  shape  was  varied,  the  hatchet 
or  hammer  being  replaced  by  forms 
similar  to  those  annexed,  or  by  the  figure 
of  a horse  at  full  gallop.8  The  rein 
seems,  in  the  early  times,  to  have  been 
attached  about  midway  in  the  cross-. 
bar,9  while  afterwards  it  became  usual  to 
attach  it  near  the  lower  end.10  This 
latter  arrangement  was  probably  found 
to  increase  the  power  of  the  driver. 

The  use  of  the  bearing-rein,  which 
prevailed  in  Egypt,11  was  unknown  to 
the  Assyrians,  or  disapproved  by  them. 

The  driving-reins  were  separate,  not 
stitched  or  buckled  together,  and  were 
held  in  the  two  hands  separately.  The 
right  hand  grasped  the  reins,  whatever 
their  number,  which  were  attached  at 

the  horses’  right  cheeks,  while  the  left  of  chariot-horses,  from 

hand  performed  the  same  office  with  the  the  Sculptures. 

8 Supra,  p.  408.  9 As  in  figs.  2,  3,  and  5,  above.  10  As  in  figs.  1 and  4,  above. 

11  Wilkinson,  vol.  i.  p.  351. 

2 E 2 


420 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


remaining  reins.  The  charioteer  urged  his  horses  onward  with 
a powerful  whip,  having  a short  handle,  and  a thick  plaited  or 
twisted  lash,  attached  like  the  lash  of  a modern  horsewhip, 
sometimes  with,  sometimes  without,  a loop,  and  often  subdivided 
at  the  end  into  two  or  three  tails. 

Chariot-horses  were  trained  to  three  paces,  a walk,  a trot,  and 
a gallop.  In  battle-pieces  they  are  commonly  represented  at 


full  speed,  in  marches  trotting,  in  processions  walking  in  a 
stately  manner.  Their  manes  were  frequently  hogged,12  though 
more  commonly  they  lay  on  the  neck,  falling  (apparently)  upon 

either  side  indifferently.  Oc- 
casionally a portion  only  was 
hogged,  while  the  greater  part 
remained  in  its  natural  con- 
dition.1 The  tail  was  uncut, 
and  generally  almost  swept  the 
ground,  but  was  confined  by  a 
string  or  riband  tied  tightly 
around  it  about  midway.  Some- 
times, more  especially  in  the 
later  sculptures,  the  lower  half  of  the  tail  is  plaited  and  tied  up 
into  a loop  or  bunch,2  according  to  the  fashion  which  prevails  in 
the  present  day  through  most  parts  of  Turkey  and  Persia. 

12  See  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis.  14,  23,  &c. 

2 See  the  woodcuts,  pp.  411  and  416. 


Mode  of  tying  horses’  tails  (Koyunjik). 


Layard,  PI.  72. 


Chap.  VII. 


ARMS  OF  THE  CHARIOT  WARRIORS. 


421 


The  warrior  who  fought  from  a chariot  was  sometimes  merely 
dressed  in  a tunic,  confined  at  the  waist  by  a belt ; sometimes, 
however,  he  wore  a coat  of  mail,  very  like  the  Egyptian,3  con- 
sisting of  a sort  of  shirt  covered  with  small  plates  or  scales  of 
metal.  This  shirt  reached  at  least  as  low  as  the  knees,  beneath 
which  the  chariot  itself  was  sufficient  protection.  It  had  short 
sleeves,  which  covered  the  shoulder  and  upper  part  of  the  arm, 
but  left  the  elbow  and  fore-arm  quite  undefended.4  The  chief 
weapon  of  the  warrior  was  the  bow,  which  is  always  seen  in  his 
hands,  usually  with  the  arrow  upon  the  string ; he  wears,  besides, 
a short  sword,  suspended  at  his  left  side  by  a strap,  and  he  has 
commonly  a spear  within  his  reach ; but  we  never  see  him  using 
either  of  these  weapons.  He  either  discharges  his  arrows  against 
the  foe  from  the  standing-board  of  his  chariot,  or,  commanding 
the  charioteer  to  halt,  descends,  and,  advancing  a few  steps 
before  his  horses’  heads,  takes  a surer  and  more  deadly  aim  from 
term  jirma.  In  this  case  his  attendant  defends  him  from  mis- 
siles by  extending  in  front  of  him  a shield,  which  he  holds  in 
his  left  hand,  while  at  the  same  time  he  makes  ready  to  repel 
any  close  assailant  by  means  of  a spear  or  sword  grasped  firmly 
in  his  right.  The  warrior’s  face  and  arms  are  always  bare ; 
sometimes  the  entire  head  is  undefended,5  though  more  com- 
monly it  has  the  protection  of  a helmet.  This,  however,  is 
without  a vizor,  and  does  not  often  so  much  as  cover  the  ears. 
In  some  few  instances  only  is  it  furnished  with  flaps  or  lappets ; 
which,  where  they  exist,  seem  to  be  made  of  metal  scales,  and, 
falling  over  the  shoulders,  entirely  conceal  the  ears,  the  back  of 
the  head,  the  neck,  and  even  the  chin.6 

The  position  occupied  by  chariots  in  the  military  system  of 
Assyria  is  indicated  in  several  passages  of  Scripture,  and  dis- 
tinctly noticed  by  many  of  the  classical  writers.  When  Isaiah 
began  to  warn  his  countrymen  of  the  miseries  in  store  for  them 


3 On  the  subject  of  Egyptian  scale- 
armour,  see  Wilkinson  in  the  author’s 
Herodotus , vol.  ii.  p.  79  ; and  compare 
the  same  writer’s  Ancient  Egyptians , 1st 
Series,  vol.  i.  p.  332. 

4 See  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series, 

. Pis.  18,  20,  and  28. 


5  Layard,  Monuments , Pis.  11,  27,  &c. 
The  attendants  who  accompany  the 
monarch  have  their  heads  uncovered  as 
a general  rule. 

a Ibid.  Pis.  18  and  28.  See  woodcut, 
infra,  p.  441. 


422 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


at  tlie  hands  of  the  new  enemy  which  first  attacked  Judaea  in 
his  day,  he  described  them  as  a people  “ whose  arrows  were 
sharp,  and  all  their  bows  bent,  whose  horses'  hoofs  should  be 
counted  like  flint,  and  their  wheels  like  a whirlwind.” 7 When 
in  after  days  he  was  commissioned  to  raise  their  drooping 
courage  by  assuring  them  that  they  would  escape  Sennacherib, 
who  had  angered  God  by  his  pride,  he  noticed,  as  one  special 
provocation  of  Jehovah,  that  monarch’s  confidence  in  “the  mul- 
titude of  his  chariots.” 8 Nahum  again,  having  to  denounce  the 
approaching  downfall  of  the  haughty  nation,  declares  that  God  is 
“against  her,  and  will  burn  her  chariots  in  the  smoke.”9  In 
the  fabulous  account  which  Ctesias  gave  of  the  origin  of  Assyrian 
greatness,  the  war-chariots  of  Ninus  were  represented  as 
amounting  to  nearly  eleven  thousand,10  while  those  of  his  wife 
and  successor,  Semiramis,  were  estimated  at  the  extravagant 
number  of  a hundred  thousand ! 11  Ctesias  further  stated  that 
the  Assyrian  chariots,  even  at  this  early  period,  were  armed  with 
scythes,  a statement  contradicted  by  Xenophon,  who  ascribes 
this  invention  to  the  Persians,12  and  one  which  receives  no  con- 
firmation from  the  monuments.  Amid  all  this  exaggeration  and 
inventiveness  one  may  still  trace  a knowledge  of  the  fact  that 
war-chariots  were  highly  esteemed  by  the  Assyrians  from  a very 
ancient  date,  while,  from  other  notices  we  may  gather  that  they 
continued  to  be  reckoned  an  important  arm  of  the  military 
service  to  the  very  end  of  the  Empire.1 

Next  to  the  war-chariots  of  the  Assyrians  we  must  place  their 
cavalry,  which  seems  to  have  been  of  scarcely  less  importance 
in  their  wars.  Ctesias,  who  amid  all  his  exaggerations  shows 
glimpses  of  some  real  knowledge  of  the  ancient  condition  of  the 
Assyrian  people,  makes  the  number  of  the  horsemen  in  their 


7 Is.  v.  28. 

8 Ibid,  xxxvii.  24.  Compare  2 K.  xix. 
23. 

9 Nahum  ii.  13.  The  mention  of  cha- 
riots in  verse  4 may  bear  on  this  point. 
More  probably,  however,  the  chariots 
intended  both  in  that  verse  and  in  iii.  2, 
are  those  of  Assyria’s  enemies. 

10  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  5,  § 4. 


11  Ibid.  ii.  17,  § 1.  Compare  Suidas 
ad  voc.  he/jLipa/Jus. 

12  De  Inst.  Cyr.  vi.  1,  § 30. 

1 Teutamus  was  said  to  have  sent  200 
chariots  with  Memnon  to  Troy  (Diod. 
Sic.  ii.  22,  § 2).  The  same  number  is 
assigned  by  Xenophon  to  the  Assyrian 
adversary  of  Cyrus  (De  Inst.  Cyr.  ii.  1, 
§5). 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  CAVALRY. 


423 


armies  always  greatly- exceed  that  of  the  chariots.2  The  writer 
of  the  Book  of  Judith  gives  Holofernes  12,000  horse-archers,3 
and  Ezekiel  seems  to  speak  of  all  the  “ desirable  young  men  ” as 
“ horsemen  riding  upon  horses.” 4 The  sculptures  show  on  the 
whole  a considerable  excess  of  cavalry  over  chariots,  though  the 
preponderance  is  not  uniformly  exhibited  throughout  the  dif- 
ferent periods. 

During  the  time  of  the  Upper  dynasty,  cavalry  appear  to  have 
been  but  little  used.  Tiglath-pileser  I.  in  the  whole  of  his  long 
Inscription  has  not  a single  mention  of  them,  though  he  speaks 
of  his  chariots  continually.  In  the  sculptures  of  Asshur-izir-pal, 
the  father  of  the  Black-Obelisk  king,  while  chariots  abound, 
horsemen  occur  only  in  rare  instances.  Afterwards,  under 
Sargon  and  Sennacherib,  we  notice  a great  change  in  this 
respect.  The  chariot  comes  to  be  almost  confined  to  the  king, 
while  horsemen  are  frequent  in  the  battle  scenes. 

In  the  first  period  the  horses’  trappings  consisted  of  a head- 
stall,  a collar,  and  one  or  more  strings  of  beads.  The  headstall 
was  somewhat  heavy,  closely  resembling  that  of  the  chariot- 
horses  of  the  time,  representations  of  which  have  been  already 
given.5  It  had  the  same  heavy  axe-shaped  bit,  the  same 
arrangement  of  straps,  and  nearly  the  same  ornamentation. 
The  only  marked  difference  was  the  omission  of  the  crest  or 
plume,  with  its  occasional  accompaniment  of  streamers.  The 
collar  was  very  peculiar.  It  consisted  of  a broad  flap,  probably 
of  leather,  shaped  almost  like  a half-moon,  which  was  placed  on 
the  neck  about  halfway  between  the  ears  and  the  withers,  and 
thence  depended  over  the  breast,  where  it  was  broadened  out 
and  ornamented  by  large  drooping  tassels.  Occasionally  the 
collar  was  plain,6  but  more  often  it  was  elaborately  patterned. 
Sometimes  pomegranates  hung  from  it,  alternating  with  the 
tassels.7 

The  cavalry  soldiers  of  this  period  ride  without  any  saddle.8 


2 Ap.  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  5,  § 4,  and  17,  § 1. 

3 Judith  ii.  15. 

4 Ezek.  xxiii.  6 and  23. 

5 Supra,  pp.  407,  411,  414,  &c.  Com- 

pare p.  231. 


6 See  above,  p.  231. 

7 Layard,  Monuments,  1st  Series,  PI.  32. 

8 For  a representation,  see  Nineveh  and 
its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  357.  Saddles  are 
not  absolutely  unknown,  for  on  the  horse 


424 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  YU. 


Their  legs  and  feet  are  bare,  and  their  seat  is  very  remarkable. 
Instead  of  allowing  their  legs  to  hang  naturally  down  the  horses’ 
sides,  they  draw  them  up  till  their  knees  are  on  a level  with 
their  chargers’  backs,  the  object  (apparently)  being  to  obtain  a 
firm  seat  by  pressing  the  base  of  the  horse’s  neck  between  the 
two  knees.  The  naked  legs  seem  to  indicate  that  it  was  found 
necessary  to  obtain  the  fullest  and  freest  play  of  the  muscles  to 
escape  the  inconveniences  of  a fall. 

The  chief  weapon  of  the  cavalry  at  this  time  is  the  bow. 
Sword  and  shield  indeed  are  worn,  but  in  no  instance  do  we  see 
them  used.  Cavalry  soldiers  are  either  archers  or  mere  attend- 
ants who  are  without  weapons  of  offence.  One  of  these  latter 
accompanies  each  horse-archer  in  battle,  for  the  purpose  of  hold- 
ing and  guiding  his  steed  while  he  discharges  his  arrows.  The 
attendant  wears  a skull-cap  and  a plain  tunic ; the  archer  has 
an  embroidered  tunic,  a belt  to  which  his  sword  is  attached,  and 
one  of  the  ordinary  pointed  helmets. 

In  the  second  period  the  cavalry  consists  in  part  of  archers,  in 
part  of  spearmen.  Unarmed  attendants  are  no  longer  found, 
both  spearmen  and  archers  appearing  to  be  able  to  manage  their 
own  horses.  Saddles  have  now  come  into  common  use : they 
consist  of  a simple  cloth,  or  flap  of  leather,  which  is  either  cut 
square,  or  shaped  somewhat  like  the  saddle-cloths  of  our  own 
cavalry.9  A single  girth  beneath  the  belly  is  their  ordinary 
fastening ; but  sometimes  they  are  further  secured  by  means  of 
a strap  or  band  passed  round  the  breast,  and  a few  instances 
occur  of  a second  strap  passed  round  the  quarters.  The  breast- 
strap  is  generally  of  a highly  ornamented  character.  The  head- 
stall  of  this  period  is  not  unlike  the  earlier  one,  from  which  it 
differs  chiefly  in  having  a crest,  and  also  a forehead  ornament 
composed  of  a number  of  small  bosses.  It  has  likewise  com- 


which  a mounted  attendant  leads  for  the 
king  behind  his  chariot,  we  see  in  every 
instance  a square-cut  cloth,  fringed  and 
patterned.  (Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Se- 
ries, Pis.  11,  21,  32,  and  49,  1.)  But  no 
other  horse  besides  the  king’s  is  thus 
caparisoned. 

9 The  square  shape  (supra,  p.  232)  is, 


apparently,  reserved  for  the  monarch 
and  his  immediate  attendants.  Ordinary 
soldiers  have  the  cloth  which  runs  out  to 
a point  (infra,  pp.  425,  426).  Sometimes, 
even  during  this  period,  there  is  no 
saddle.  (Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series, 
PI.  64 ; Botta,  Monument , vol.  ii.  Pis.  87, 
88,  94,  99,  &c.) 


. Chap.  VII. 


THE  CAYALEY. 


425 


monly  a strap  across  the  nose,  but  none  under  the  cheek-bones. 
It  is  often  richly  ornamented,  particularly  with  rosettes,  bells, 
and  tassels.10 


The  old  pendant  collar  is  replaced  by  one  encircling  the  neck 
about  halfway  up,  or  is  sometimes  dispensed  with  altogether. 
Where  it  occurs,  it  is  generally  of  uniform  width,  and  is  orna- 


Mounted  spearman  of  the  time  of  Sargon. 


mented  with  rosettes  or  tassels.  No  conjecture  has  been  formed 
of  any  use  which  either  form  of  collar  could  serve ; and  the 
probability  is  that  they  were  intended  solely  for  ornament. 

A great  change  is  observable  in  the  sculptures  of  the  second 
period  with  respect  to  the  dress  of  the  riders.  The  cavalry 
soldier  is  now  completely  clothed,11  with  the  exception  of  his 


10  See  the  “ Head  of  an  Assyrian 
Horse,”  on  p.  231,  and  the  “Groom  and 
Horses,”  p.  350. 


11  A few  instances  occur  where  the 
legs  are  still  naked,  more  especially  in 
Sargon’s  sculptures  (Layard,  Monuments , 


426 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Ciiap.  YU.  . 


two  aims,  whicli  are  bare  from  a little  below  the  shoulder.  He 
wears  most  commonly  a tunic  which  fits  him  closely  about  the 
body,  but  below  the  waist  expands  into  a loose  kilt  or  petticoat, 
very  much  longer  behind  than  in  front,  which 
is  sometimes  patterned,  and  always  terminates 
in  a fringe.  Round  his  waist  he  has  a broad 
belt ; and  another,  of  inferior  width,  from 
which  a sword  hangs,  passes  over  his  left 
shoulder.1  His  legs  are  encased  in  a close- 
fitting  pantaloon  or  trouser,  over  which  he 
wears  a laced  boot  or  greave,  which  generally 
reaches  nearly  to  the  knee,  though  sometimes 
it  only  covers  about  half  the  calf.  This  cos- 
tume, which  is  first  found  in  the  time  of  Sargon, 
and  continues  to  the  reign  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  Esarhaddon’s  son, 
may  properly  be  regarded  as  the  regular  cavalry  uniform  under 


the  monarchs  of  the  Lower  Empire.  In  Sennacherib’s  reign  there 
is  found  in  conjunction  with  it  another  costume,  which  is  un- 
known to  the  earlier  sculptures.  This  consists  of  a dress  closely 


1st  Series,  PI.  64 ; Botta,  Monument , vol. 
ii.  Pis.  87,  142).  But  the  rule  is  as  stated 
in  the  text. 

1 Sometimes  this  belt  passes  over  the 


right  shoulder ; sometimes  it  is  omitted 
altogether,  and  the  spearman  or  archer 
has  no  sword. 


Chap.  YII. 


THE  CAVALRY. 


427 


fitting  the  whole  body,  composed  apparently  of  a coat  of  mail, 
leather  or  felt  breeches,  and  a high  greave  or  jack-boot.  The 
wearers  of  this  costume  are  spearmen  or  archers  indifferently. 
The  former  carry  a long  weapon,  which  has  generally  a rather 
small  head,  and  is  grasped  low  down  the  shaft.  The  bow  of  the 
latter  is  either  round-arched  or  angular,  and  seems  to  be  not  more 
than  four  feet  in  length;  the  arrows  measure  less  than  three 
feet,  and  are  slung  in  a quiver  at  the  archer’s  back.  Both 
spearmen  and  archers  commonly  carry  swords,  which  are  hung 
on  the  left  side,  in  a diagonal,  or  sometimes  nearly  in  a hori- 
zontal, position.  In  some  few  cases  the  spearman  is  also  an 
archer,  and  carries  his  bow  on  his 
right  arm,  apparently  as  a reserve 
in  case  he  should  break  or  lose 
his  spear.2 

The  seat  of  the  horseman  is 
far  more  graceful  in  the  second 
than  in  the  first  period ; his  limbs 
appear  to  move  freely,  and  his 
mastery  over  his  horse  is  such 
that  he  needs  no  attendant.  The 
spearman  holds  the  bridle  in  his 
left  hand  ; the  archer  boldly  lays 
it  upon  the  neck  of  his  steed, 
who  is  trained  either  to  continue  his  charge,  or  to  stand  firm, 
while  a steady  aim  is  taken. 

In  the  sculptures  of  the  son  and  successor  of  Esarhaddon,  the 
horses  of  the  cavalry  carry  not  unfrequently,  in  addition  to  the 
ordinary  saddle  or  pad,  a large  cloth  nearly  similar  to  that  worn 
sometimes  by  chariot-horses,  of  which  a representation  has  been 
already  given.3  It  is  cut  square  with  two  drooping  lappets,  and 
covers  the  greater  part  of  the  body.  Occasionally  it  is  united 
to  a sort  of  breastplate  which  protects  the  neck,  descending 
about  halfway  down  the  chest.  The  material  may  be  supposed 
to  have  been  thick  felt  or  leather,  either  of  which  would  have 
been  a considerable  protection  against  weapons. 


Horse  archer  of  the  latest  period. 


2 See  the  woodcut  on  p.  425. 


3 Supra,  p.  416. 


428 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YU. 


While  the  cavalry  and  the  chariots  were  regarded  as  the  most 
important  portions  of  the  military  force,  and  were  the  favourite 
services  with  the  rich  and  powerful,  there  is  still  abundant 
reason  to  believe  that  Assyrian  armies,  like  most  others,4  con- 
sisted mainly  of  foot.  Ctesias  gives  Ninus  1,700,000  footmen 
to  210,000  horsemen,  and  10,600  chariots.5  Xenophon  con- 
trasts the  multitude  of  the  Assyrian  infantry  with  the  com- 
paratively scanty  numbers  of  the  other  two  services.6  Herodotus 
makes  the  Assyrians  serve  in  the  army  of  Xerxes  on  foot  only.7 
The  author  of  the  book  of  Judith  assigns  to  Holofernes  an 
infantry  force  ten  times  as  numerous  as  his  cavalry.8  The 
Assyrian  monuments  entirely  bear  out  the  general  truth 
involved  in  all  these  assertions,  showing  us,  as  they  do,  at  least 
ten  Assyrian  warriors  on  foot  for  each  one  mounted  on  horse- 
back, and  at  least  a hundred  for  each  one  who  rides  in  a chariot. 
However  terrible  to  the  foes  of  the  Assyrians  may  have  been 
the  shock  of  their  chariots  and  the  impetuosity  of  their  horse- 
men, it  was  probably  to  the  solidity  of  the  infantry,1  to  their 
valour,  equipment,  and  discipline,  that  the  empire  was  mainly 
indebted  for  its  long  series  of  victories. 

In  the  time  of  the  earliest  sculptures,  all  the  Assyrian  foot- 
soldiers  seem  to  have  worn  nearly  the  same  costume.  This 
consisted  of  a short  tunic,  not  quite  reaching  to  the  knees,  con- 
fined round  the  waist  by  a broad  belt,  fringed,  and  generally 


4 In  settled  empires  the  cavalry  rarely 
amounts  to  one-fifth  of  the  infantry  force. 
In  early  Rome  the  proportion  seems  to 
have  been  one-tenth  (Mommsen,  History 
of  Rome , vol.  i.  p.  97,  E.  T.) ; in  the  im- 
perial legion  it  was  little  more  than  a 
twentieth.  Among  the  Persians  it  was 
even  less  than  this,  being  only  one- 
twenty-fifth  at  Arbela  (Arr.  Exp.  Al. 
iii.  8).  Alexander  the  Great,  who  laid 
great  stress  on  the  cavalry  service,  made 
the  proportion  in  his  armies  one-sixth, 
or  a little  more  (ibid.  i.  11  ; iii.  12,  &c.). 
It  is  only  when  races  are  in  the  nomadic 
condition  that  the  relation  of  the  two 

arms  is  inverted.  The  hordes  of  Genghis 

consisted  almost  entirely  of  cavalry,  and 

the  Scythians  attacked  by  Darius  had 

not  a footman  among  them.  (Herod. 


iv.  46.)  5 Ap.  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  5,  § 4. 

6 De  Tnst.  Cyr.  ii.  1,  § 5. 

7 Herod,  vii.  84-87. 

8 Judith  ii.  5. 

1 The  prophet  Isaiah,  while  seizing 
such  salient  points  as  the  “ horses’  hoofs 
that  are  counted  like  flint,”  and  the 
chariot  “ wheels,  that  are  like  a whirl- 
wind,” to  give  force  to  his  description, 
assigns  its  due  place  to  the  Assyrian 
infantry,  of  which  he  says  : “ They  shall 
come  with  speed,  swiftly ; none  shall  be 
weary  nor  stumble  among  them ; none 
shall  slumber  nor  sleep ; neither  shall 
the  girdle  of  their  loins  be  loosed,  nor 
the  latchet  of  their  shoes  be  broken ; 
whose  arrows  are  sharp,  and  all  their 
hows  bent.”  (Is.  v.  27,  28.) 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  INFANTRY. 


429 


Ordinary  sandal  of  the 
first  period. 


opening  in  front,  together  with  a pointed  helmet,  probably  of 
metal.  The  arms,  legs,  neck,  and  even  the  feet,  were  ordinarily 
bare,  although  these  last  had  sometimes  the  protection  of  a very 
simple  sandal.  Swordsmen  used  a small 
straight  sword  or  dagger  which  they  wore 
at  their  left  side  in  an  ornamented  sheath, 
and  a shield  which  was  either  convex  and 
probably  of  metal,  or  oblong-square  and 
composed  of  wicker-work.2  Spearmen  had 
shields  of  a similar  shape  and  construction, 
and  carried  in  their  right  hands  a short 
pike  or  javelin,  certainly  not  exceeding  five 
feet  in  length.  Sometimes,  but  not  always, 
they  carried,  besides  the  pike,  a short  sword. 

Archers  had  rounded  bows  about  four  feet 
in  length  and  arrows  a little  more  than 
three  feet  long.  Their  quivers,  which  were 
often  highly  ornamented,  hung  at  their  backs,  either  over  the 
right  or  over  the  left  shoulder.  They  had  swords  suspended  at 


Convex  shield  of  the  first 
period  (Nimrud). 


Foot  spearman  of  the  first  period,  Foot  archer,  with  attendant — first 

with  wicker  shield  (Nimrud).  period  (Nimrud). 


their  left  sides  by  a cross-belt,  and  often  carried  maces,  probably 
of  bronze  or  iron,  wThich  bore  a rosette  or  other  ornament  at  one 

PI.  29)  ; but  they  are  comparatively 
uncommon. 


2 Round  shields  or  targes  are  also 
sometimes  worn  by  swordsmen  at  this 
time  (Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series, 


430 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


end,  and  a ring  or  strap  at  the  other.  The  tunics  of  archers 
were  sometimes  elaborately  embroidered ; 3 and  on  the  whole 
they  seem  to  have  been  regarded  as  the  flower  of  the  foot- 
soldiery.  Generally  they  are  represented  in  pairs,  the  two  being 
in  most  cases  armed  and  equipped  alike  ; but,  occasionally,  one 
of  the  pair  acts  as  guard  while  the  other  takes  his  aim.  In  this 
case  both  kneel  on  one  knee,  and  the  guard,  advancing  his  long 
wicker  shield,  protects  both  himself  and  his  comrade  from  mis- 
siles, while  he  has  at  the  same  time  his  sword  drawn  to  repel  all 
hand-to-hand  assailants. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  second  period,  which  synchronises 
with  the  reign  of  Sargon,  the  difference  in  the  costumes  of  the 

foot-soldiers  becomes  much  more 
marked.  The  Assyrian  infantry  now 
consists  of  two  great  classes,  archers 
and  spearmen.4  The  archers  are 
either  light-armed  or  heavy-armed, 
and  of  the  latter  there  are  two 
clearly  distinct  varieties.  The  light- 
armed  have  no  helmet,  but  wear  on 
their  heads  a mere  fillet  or  band, 
which  is  either  plain  or  patterned. 
Except  for  a cross-belt  which  sup- 
ports the  quiver,  they  are  wholly 
F“tm»tCT(St‘4l^Uil>'  to  the  middle.  Their  only 

garment  is  a tunic  of  the  scantiest 
dimensions,  beginning  at  the  waist,  round  which  it  is  fastened 
by  a broad  belt  or  girdle,  and  descending  little  more  than  halfway 
down  the  thigh.  In  its  make  it  sometimes  closely  resembles  the 
tunic  of  the  first  period,5  but  more  often  it  has  the  peculiar 
pendant  ornament,  which  has  been  compared  to  the  Scotch 
phillibeg,6  and  which  will  be  here  given  that  name.  It  is  often 
patterned  with  squares  and  gradines.  The  light-armed  archer 


• 

3 Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  26. 

4 Swordsmen  scarcely  appear  as  a 
class.  They  occur  only  in  twos  and 
threes  at  the  sieges,  where  they  exactly 
resemble  the  swordsmen  of  the  first 


period. 

5 See  Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vol. 
i.  PI.  61. 

6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  336. 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  INFANTRY. 


431 


has  usually  bare  feet ; occasionally,  however,  he  wears  the  slight 
sandal  of  this  period,  which  is  little  more  than  a cap  for  the  heel 
held  in  place  by  two  or  three  strings  passed  across  the  instep. 
There  is  nothing  remarkable  in  his  arms,  which  resemble  those 
of  the  preceding  period;  but  it  may  be  observed  that,  while 
shooting,  he  frequently  holds  two  arrows  in  his  right  hand  besides 
that  which  is  upon  the  string.  He  shoots  either  kneeling  or  stand- 
ing, generally  the  latter.  His  ordinary  position  is  in  the  van  of 
battle,  though  sometimes  a portion  of  the  heavy-armed  troops 
precede  him.7  He  has  no  shield,  and  is  not  protected  by  an 
attendant,8  thus  running  more  risk  than  any  of  the  rest  of  the 
army. 

The  more  simply  equipped  of  the  heavy  archers  are  clothed 
in  a coat  of  mail,  which  reaches  from  their  neck  to  their  middle, 
and  partially  covers  the  arms. 

Below  this  they  wear  a fringed 
tunic  reaching  to  the  knees,  and 
confined  at  the  waist  by  a broad 
belt  of  the  ordinary  character. 

Their  feet  have  in  most  instances 
the  protection  of  a sandal,  and 
they  wear  on  their  heads  the 
common  or  pointed  helmet. 

They  usually  discharge  their 
arrows  kneeling  on  the  left  knee, 
with  the  right  foot  advanced 
before  them.  During  this  ope- 
ration  they  are  protected  by  an  Foot  archer  of  the  intermediate  equip- 
attendant,  who  is  sometimes  ment>  with  attendant.  (Time  of 
dressed  like  themselves,  some-  Sarson-) 
times  merely  clad  in  a tunic,  without  a coat  of  mail.  Like  them, 
he  wears  a pointed  helmet ; and  while  in  one  hand  he  carries  a 
spear,  with  the  other  he  holds  forward  a shield,  which  is  either 
of  a round  form — apparently,  of  metal  embossed  with  figures 9 — 


7 Botta,  Pis.  95  and  98. 

8 One  instance  only  of  such  protection 

is  to  be  found  in  M.  Botta’s  work.  (See 


vol.  i.  PI.  62.) 

9  See  the  woodcuts,  infra,  p.  447. 


432 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


or  oblong-square  in  shape,  and  evidently  made  of  wickerwork. 
Archers  of  this  class  are  the  least  common,  and  scarcely  ever 
occur  unless  in  combination  with  some  of  the  class  which  has 
the  heaviest  equipment. 

The  principal  characteristic  of  the  third  or  most  heavily 
armed  class  of  archers  is  the  long  robe,  richly  fringed,  which 
descends  nearly  to  their  feet,  thus  completely  protecting  all  the 
lower  part  of  their  person.  Above  this  they  wear  a coat  of  mail 
exactly  resembling  that  of  archers  of  the  intermediate  class, 
which  is  sometimes  crossed  by  a belt  ornamented  with  cross- 
bars. Their  head  is  covered  by 
the  usual  pointed  helmet,  and 
their  feet  are  always,  or  nearly 
always,  protected  by  sandals. 
They  are  occasionally  repre- 
sented without  either  sword  or 
quiver,10  but  more  usually  they 
have  a short  sword  at  their  left 
side,  which  appears  to  have  been 
passed  through  their  coat  of 
mail,  between  the  armour  plates, 
and  in  a few  instances  they 
have  also  quivers  at  their  backs.1 
Where  these  are  lacking,  they 
generally  either  carry  two  extra 
arrows  in  their  right  hand,2 
or  have  the  same  number  borne  for  them  by  an  attend- 
ant.3 They  are  never  seen  unattended:  sometimes  they  have 
one,  sometimes  two  attendants,4  who  accompany  them,  and 
guard  them  from  attack.  One  of  these  almost  always  bears  the 
long  wicker  shield,  called  by  the  Greeks  7 eppov,b  which  he  rests 
firmly  upon  the  ground  in  front  of  himself  and  comrade.  The 


Foot  archer  of  the  heavy  equipment,  with 
attendant.  (Time  of  Sargon.) 


10  See  the  woodcut  above. 

1 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol.  i. 
PI.  60. 

2 Ibid.  vol.  i.  PI.  77. 

3 Ibid.  vol.  i.  PI.  62 ; vol.  ii.  PI.  99. 

4 Two  attendants  are  comparatively 
uncommon,  but  they  will  be  seen  in 


M.  Botta’s  work,  Pis.  55,  60,  and  95 ; 
possibly  also  in  PL  99. 

5  Herod,  ix.  62  ; Xen.  Anab.  i.  8,  § 9. 
Sometimes  the  yeppov  is  straight,  some- 
times it  curves  backwards  towards  the 
top.  (See  below,  p.  445.) 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  INFANTRY. 


433 


other,  where  there  is  a second,  stands  a little  in  the  rear,  and 
guards  the  archer’s  head  with  a round  shield  or  targe.  Both 
attendants  are  dressed  in  a short  tunic,  a phillibeg,  a belt,  and  a 
pointed  helmet.  Generally  they  wear  also  a coat  of  mail  and 
sandals,  like  those  of  the  archer.  They  carry  swords  at  their 
left  sides,  and  the  principal  attendant,  except  when  he  bears 
the  archer’s  arrows,  guards  him  from  attack  by  holding  in 
advance  a short  spear.  The  archers  of  this  class  never  kneel, 
but  always  discharge  their  arrows  standing.  They  seem  to  be 
regarded  as  the  most  important 
of  the  foot-soldiers,  their  services 
being  more  particularly  valuable 
in  the  siege  of  fortified  places. 

The  spearmen  of  this  period 
are  scarcely  better  armed  than 
the  second  or  intermediate  class 
of  archers.  Except  in  very  rare 
instances  they  have  no  coat  of 
mail,  and  their  tunic,  which  is 
either  plain  or  covered  with  small 
squares,  barely  reaches  to  the 
knee.  The  most  noticeable  point 
about  them  is  their  helmet,  which 
is  never  the  common  pointed  or 
conical  one,  but  is  always  sur- 
mounted by  a crest  of  one  kind  or 
another.6  A further  very  frequent  peculiarity  is  the  arrangement 
of  their  cross-belts,  which  meet  on  the  back  and  breast,  and  are 
ornamented  at  the  points  of  junction  with  a circular  disk,  probably 
of  metal.  The  shield  of  the  spearmen  is  also  circular,  and  is 
formed — generally,  if  not  always — of  wicker-work,  with  (occa- 
sionally) a central  boss  of  wood  or  metal.  In  most  cases  their 
legs  are  wholly  bare ; but  sometimes  they  have  sandals,  while 
in  one  or  two  instances 7 they  wear  a low  boot  or  greave  laced 


Foot  spearman  of  the  time  of  Sargon 
(Khorsabad). 


6 On  the  variety  in  the  crests  of  Assyrian  helmets,  see  below,  page  442. 

7 Botta,  Monument,  xol.  ii.  Pis.  90  and  93. 


2 F 


VOL.  I. 


434 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


in  front  and  resembling  tliat  of  the  cavalry.8  The  spear  with 
which  they  are  armed  varies  in  length,  from  about  four  to  six 
feet.  It  is  grasped  near  the  lower  extremity,  at  which  a weight 


Shield  of  a spearman  (Khorsabad):  Greave  of  a spearman  (Khorsabad). 

was  sometimes  attached,  in  order  the  better  to  preserve  the 
balance.  Besides  this  weapon  they  have  the  ordinary  short 


Spear,  with  weight  at  the  Tower  end  (Khorsabad). 


sword.  The  spearmen  play  an  important  part  in  the  Assyrian 
wars,  particularly  at  sieges,  where  they  always  form  the  strength 
of  the  storming  party. 

Some  important  changes  seem  to  have  been  made  under  Sen- 
nacherib in  the  equipment  and  organisation  of  the  infantry 
force.  These  consisted  chiefly  in  the  establishment  of  a greater 
number  of  distinct  corps  differently  armed,  and  in  an  improved 
equipment  of  the  more  important  of  them.  Sennacherib  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  first  to  institute  a corps  of  slingers,  who 
at  any  rate  make  their  earliest  appearance  in  his  sculptures. 
They  were  a kind  of  soldier  well  known  to  the  Egyptians ; 9 and 
Sennacherib's  acquaintance  with  the  Egyptian  warfare  may 
have  led  to  their  introduction  among  the  troops  of  Assyria. 
The  slinger  in  most  countries  where  his  services  were  employed 
was  lightly  clad,  and  reckoned  almost  as  a supernumerary.  It 


8 Vide  supra,  page  426. 

9 See  Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyptians r 
1st  Series,  vol.  i.  p.  316.  A slinger  is 
represented  among  the  enemies  of  the 


Assyrians  in  one  of  the  earliest  sculp- 
tures. (Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series, 
PI.  29.) 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  INFANTRY. 


435 


is  remarkable  that  in  Assyria  be  is,  at  first,  completely  armed 
according  to  Assyrian  ideas  of  completeness,  having  a helmet, 
a coat  of  mail  to  the  waist,  a tunic  to  the  knees,  a 
close-fitting  trouser,  and  a short  hoot  or  greave. 

The  weapon  which  distinguishes  him  appears  to 
have  consisted  of  two  pieces  of  rope  or  string,1 
attached  to  a short  leathern  strap  which  received 
the  stone.  Previous  to  making  his  throw,  the  slinger 
seems  to  have  whirled  the  weapon  around  his  head 
two  or  three  times,  in  order  to  obtain  an  increased 
impetus — a practice  which  was  also  known  to  the  (Koyunjik). 
Egyptians  and  the  Romans.2  With  regard  to  am- 
munition, it  does  not  clearly  appear  how  the  Assyrian  slinger 
was  supplied.  He  has  no  bag  like  the  Hebrew  slinger,3  no  sinus 
like  the  Roman.4  Frequently 
we  see  him  simply  provided 
with  a single  extra  stone  wdiich 
he  carries  in  his  left  hand. 

Sometimes,  besides  this  re- 
serve, he  has  a small  heap  of 
stones  at  his  feet ; but  whether 
lie  has  collected  them  from  the 
field,  or  has  brought  them  with 
him  and  deposited  them  where 
they  lie,  is  not  apparent. 

Sennacherib’s  archers  fall 
into  four  classes,  two  of  which 

may  be  called  heavy-armed  Foot  archer  of  the  heavy  equipment, 
f , with  attendant.  (Time  pf  Sennacherib.) 

and  two  light-armed.  .None 

of  them  exactly  resemble  the  archers  of  Sargon.  The  most 


1 Sometimes  the  twist  of  the  string  is 
very  clearly  discernible,  as  represented 
above  in  the  woodcut. 

2 For  the  Roman  usage  see  the  well- 
known  lines  of  Virgil, — 

“ Stridentem  fundam,  positis  Mezentius  hastis, 

Ipse  ter  adducta  circum  caput  egit  habena.” 
— J?n.  ix.  586,  587. 
For  the  Egyptian,  consult  Wilkinson, 
Ancient  Egyptians,  1st  Series,  vol.  i.p.  316. 


3 “ And  David  took  his  staff  in  his 

hand,  and  chose  him  five  smooth  stones 
out  of  the  brook,  and  put  them  in  a 
shepherd’s  bag  which  he  had,  even  in  a 
scrip,  and  his  sling  was  in  his  hand,” 
&c.  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40.) 

4 See  a representation  in  Smith’s  Dic- 
tionary of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities , 
s.  v.  Funda. 


2 f 2 


436 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


heavily  equipped  wears  a tunic,  a coat  of  mail  reaching  to  the 
waist,  a pointed  helmet,  a close-fitting  trouser,  and  a short  boot 
or  greave.  He  is  accompanied  by  an  attendant  (or  sometimes 


by  two  attendants 5)  similar] 
wicker  shield  or  gerrhon. 
worn  by  the  second  class, 
the  archers  of  which  have 
bare  legs,  a tunic  which 
seems  to  open  at  the  side, 
and  a phillibeg.  They  fight 
without  the  protection  of  a 
shield,  generally  in  pairs, 
who  shoot  together. 


attired,  and  fights  behind  a large 
. modification  of  this  costume  is 


Foot  archers  of  the  second  class.  Belts  and  head-dress  of  a foot  archer  of  the 
(Time  of  Sennacherib.)  third  class.  (Time  of  Sennacherib.) 


The  better  equipped  of  the  light-armed  archers  of  this  period 
have  a costume  which  is  very  striking.  Their  head-dress  con- 
sists of  a broad  fillet,  elaborately  patterned,  from,  which  there 
often  depends  on  either  side  of  the  head  a large  lappet,  also 
richly  ornamented,  generally  of  an  oblong-square  shape,  and 
terminating  in  a fringe.  Below  this  they  wear  a closely-fitting 
tunic,  as  short  as  that  worn  by  the  light-armed  archers  of  Sar- 


5 See  Layard’s  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI.  20. 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  INFANTRY. 


437 


Mode  of  carrying  the  quiver, 
of  Sennacherib.) 


(Time 


gon,6  sometimes  patterned,  like  that,  with  squares  and  gradines, 
sometimes  absolutely  plain.  The  upper  part  of  this  tunic  is 
crossed  by  two  belts  of  very  unusual  breadth,  which  pass  re- 
spectively over  the  right  and  the 
left  shoulder.  There  is  also  a 
third  broad  belt  round  the  waist ; 
and  both  this  and  the  transverse 
belts  are  adorned  with  elegant 
patterns.  The  phillibeg  depends 
from  the  girdle,  and  is  seen  in 
its  full  extent,  hanging  either  in 
front  or  on  the  right  side.  The 
arms  are  naked  from  the  shoulder, 
and  the  legs  from  considerably 
above  the  knee,  the  feet  alone  being  protected  by  a scanty 
sandal.7  The  ordinary  short  sword  is  worn  at  the  side,  and  a 
quiver  is  carried  at  the  back ; 
the  latter  is  sometimes  kept  in 
place  by  means  of  a horizontal 
strap  which  passes  over  it  and 
round  the  body. 

rAo  archers  of  the  lightest 
equipment  wear  nothing  but  a 
fillet,  with  or  without  lappets, 
upon  the  head,  and  a striped 
tunic,8  longer  behind  than  in  front, 
which  extends  from  the  neck  to 
the  knees,  and  is  confined  at  the 
waist  by  a girdle.  Their  arms, 
legs,  and  feet  are  bare ; they  have 
seldom  any  sword ; and  their 
quiver  seems  to  be  suspended  only  by  a single  horizontal  strap, 
like  that  represented  in  the  upper  woodcut.  They  do  not  appear 


Foot  archers  of  the  lightest  equip- 
ment. (Time  of  Sennacherib.) 


0 See  above,  page  430. 

7 Sometimes  the  feet  also  are  bare. 
(Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI.  20.) 

8 This  tunic  is  very  incorrectly  repre- 
sented by  Mr.  Layard’s  artist  in  PI.  20 


of  the  2nd  Series  of  Monuments.  He 
has  omitted  almost  all  the  stripes,  and 
has  only  in  one  instance  sufficiently 
marked  the  fall  of  the  tunic  behind. 


43^ 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


very  often  upon  the  monuments:  when  seen,  they  are  inter- 
spersed among  archers  and  soldiers  of  other  classes. 

Sennacherib’s  foot  spearmen  are  of  two  classes  only.  The 
better  armed  have  pointed  helmets,  with  lappets  protecting  the 
ears,  a coat  of  mail  descending  to  the  waist  and  also  covering 
all  the  upper  part  of  the  arms,  a tunic 
opening  at  the  side,  a phillibeg,  close- 
fitting  trousers,  and  greaves  of  the  ordi- 
nary character.  They  carry  a large  con- 
vex shield,  apparently  of  metal,  which 
covers  them  almost  from  head  to  foot, 
and  a spear  somewhat  less  than  their  own 
height.9  Commonly  they  have  a short 
sword  at  their  right  side.  Their  shield 
is  often  ornamented  with  rows  of  bosses 
towards  the  centre  and  around  the  edge. 
It  is  ordinarily  carried  in  front ; 1 but 
when  the  warrior  is  merely  upon  the 
march,  he  often  bears  it  slung  at  his 
back,  as  in  the  accompanying  representa- 

Foot  spearman  of  the  time  tion.  There  is  reason  to  suspect  that 
of  Sennacherib.  „ . , ...  4 ,. 

the  spearmen  ot  this  description  consti- 
tuted the  royal  body-guard.  They  are  comparatively  few  in 
number,  and  are  usually  seen  in  close  proximity  to  the  monarch, 
or  in  positions  which  imply  trust,  as  in  the  care  of  prisoners  and 
of  the  spoil.  They  never  make  the  attacks  in  sieges,  and  are 
rarely  observed  to  be  engaged  in  battle.  Where  several  of  them 
are  seen  together,  it  is  almost  always  in  attendance  upon  the 
king,  whom  they  constantly  precede  upon  his  journeys.8 

The  inferior  spearmen  of  Sennacherib  are  armed  nearly  like 
those  of  Sargon.3  They  have  crested  helmets,  plain  tunics  con- 
fined at  the  waist  by  a broad  girdle,  cross-belts  ornamented  with 
circular  disks  where  they  meet  in  the  centre  of  the  breast,  and, 


9 The  spear  in  the  accompanying  re- 
presentation is  somewhat  longer,  and  the 
shield  somewhat  shorter,  than  usual. 

1  See  the  representation  in  Mr.  Lay- 
ard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii. 


p.  345. 

2 See  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series, 
Pis.  72  and  80 ; 2nd  Series,  Pis.  29,  42, 
and  43. 

3 Supra,  p.  433. 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  INFANTRY. 


439 


most  commonly,  round  wicker  shields.  The  chief  points  where- 
in they  differ  from  Sargon’s  spearmen  are  the  following : they 
usually  (though  not  universally)  wear 
trousers  and  greaves;  they  have  sleeves 
to  their  tunics,  which  descend  nearly  to 
the  elbow ; and  they  carry  sometimes, 
instead  of  the  round  shield,  a long  con- 
vex one  arched  at  the  top.  Where  they 
have  not  this  defence,  but  the  far  com- 
moner targe,  it  is  always  of  larger  di- 
mensions than  the  targe  of  Sargon,  and  is 
generally  surrounded  by  a rim.  Some- 
times it  appears  to  be  of  metal ; but  more 
often  it  is  of  wickerwork,  either  of  the 
plain  construction  common  in  Sargon’s 
time,  or  of  one  considerably  more  elabo- 
rate. 

Among  the  foot  soldiers  of  Sennacherib 
we  seem  to  find  a corps  of  pioneers.4  They 
wear  the  same  dress  as  the  better  equipped 
of  the  spearmen,  but  carry  in  their  hands, 
instead  of  a spear,  a double-headed  axe 
or  hatchet,  wherewith  they  clear  the  ground  for  the  passage 
and  movements  of  the  army.  They  work  in  pairs,  one  pulling 
at  the  tree  by  its  branches  while  the  other  attacks  the  stem 
with  his  weapon. 

After  Sennacherib’s  time  we  find  but  few  alterations  in  the 
equipment  of  the  foot  soldiers.  Esarhaddon  has  left  us  no 
sculptures,  and  in  those  of  his  son  and  successor,  Asshur-bani- 
pal,  the  costumes  of  Sennacherib  are  for  the  most  part  repro- 
duced almost  exactly.  The  chief  difference  is  that  there  are 
not  at  this  time  quite  so  many  varieties  of  equipment,  both 
archers  and  spearmen  being  alike  divided  into  two  classes  only, 
light-armed  and  heavy-armed.  The  light-armed  archers  corre- 
spond to  Sennacherib’s  bowmen  of  the  third  class.5  They  have 


Wicker  shield  of  spearmen. 
(Time  of  Sennacherib.) 


Wicker  shield  or  targe. 
(Time  of  Sennacherib.) 


4 See  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  76. 


5 Supra,  p.  436. 


440 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Metal  shield  of  the 
latest  period. 


the  fillet,  the  plain  tunic,  the  cross-belts,  the  broad  girdle,  and 
the  phillibeg.  They  differ  only  in  having  no  lappets  over  the 
ears  and  no  sandals.  The  heavy-armed  archers  resemble  the 
first  class6  of  Sennacherib  exactly,  except  that  they  are  not 
seen  shooting  from  behind  the  gerrhon. 

In  the  case  of  the  spearmen,  the  only  novelty  consists  in  the 
shields.  The  spearmen  of  the  heavier  equip- 
ment, though  sometimes  they  carry  the  old 
convex  oval  shield,  more  often  have  one  which 
is  made  straight  at  the  bottom,  and  rounded 
only  at  top.  The  spearmen  of  the  lighter 
equipment  have  likewise  commonly  a shield  of 
this  shape,  but  it  is  of  wickerwork  instead  of 
metal,  like  that  borne  occasionally  by  the 
light-armed  spearmen  of  Sennacherib.7 

Besides  spearmen  and  archers,  we  see  among 
the  foot  soldiers  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  slingers, 
mace-bearers,  and  men  armed  with  battle-axes.  For  the  slingers 
Sennacherib’s  heavy  equipment 8 has  been  discarded ; and  they 
wear  nothing  but  a plain  tunic,  with  a girdle 
and  cross-belts.  The  mace-bearers  and  men 
with  axes  have  the  exact  dress  of  Asshur- 
bani-pal’s  heavy-armed  spearmen,  and  may 
possibly  be  spearmen  who  have  broken  or  lost 
their  weapons.  It  makes,  however,  against 
this  view,  that  they  have  no  shields,  which 
spearmen  always  carry.  Perhaps,  therefore,  we 
must  conclude  that  towards  the  close  of  the 
empire,  besides  spearmen,  slingers,  and  archers, 
there  were  distinct  corps  of  mace-bearers 9 and 
axe-bearers. 

The  arms  used  by  the  Assyrians  have  been 
mentioned,  and  to  a certain  extent  described, 
in  the  foregoingremarks  upon  the  various  classes  of  their  soldiers. 


Slinger.  (Time  of 
Asshur-bani-pal.) 


* Supra,  p.  435. 

7 A representation  of  this  shield  is 
given  on  the  last  page.  8 Supra,  p.  435. 


9 According  to  Herodotus,  the  Assy- 
rians in  the  army  of  Xerxes  “ carried 
lances,  daggers,  and  wooden  clubs  knotted 


Chap.  VII. 


ARMS  — HELMETS. 


441 


Pointed  helmet,  with 
curtain  of  scales 
(Nimrud). 


Some  farther  details  may,  however,  be  now  added  on  their 
character  and  on  the  variety  observable  in  them. 

The  common  Assyrian  pointed  helmet  has  been  sufficiently 
described  already,  and  has  received  abundant  illustration  both 
in  the  present  and  in  former  chapters.  It  was  at  first  regarded 
as  Scythic  in  character ; but  Mr.  Layard  long 
ago  observed1  that  the  resemblance  which  it 
bears  to  the  Scythian  cap  is  too  slight  to  prove 
any  connexion.  That  cap  appears,  whether  we 
follow  the  foreign  or  the  native  representations 
of  it,2  to  have  been  of  felt,  whereas  the  Assyrian 
pointed  helmet  was  made  of  metal;  it  was 
much  taller  than  the  Assyrian  head-dress,  and 
it  was  less  upright. 

The  pointed  helmet  admitted  of  but  few 
varieties.  In  its  simplest  form  it  was  a plain  conical  casque, 
with  one  or  two  rings  round  the  base,  and  generally  with  a 
half-disk  in  front  di- 
rectly over  the  fore- 
head. Sometimes, 
however,  there  was 
appended  to  it  a fall- 
ing curtain  covered 
with  metal  scales, 
whereby  the  chin, 
neck,  ears,  and  back 
of  the  head  were  pro- 
tected. More  often 
it  had,  in  lieu  of  this 
effectual  but  cum- 
brous guard,  a mere 
lappet  or  cheek-piece,  consisting  of  a plate  of  metal,  attached  to 
the  rim,  which  descended  over  the  ears  in  the  form  of  a half-oval 


Iron  helmet  (from  Koyunjik). 


with  iron  ” (poVaAa  £v\oov  rervXcjfxeva 
aud'fipa).  Herod,  vii.  63).  It  is  possible 
that  this  may  be  a sort  of  periphrasis  for 
maces,  which  were  not  in  use  among  the 
Greeks  of  his  day. 


1 Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  341 . 

2 For  foreign  representations,  see  the 
author’s  Herodotus , vol.  iv.  p.  65  ; and 
for  a native  one,  see  the  same  work, 
vol.  iii.  p.  69. 


442 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VI  f. 


or  semi-circle.  If  we  may  judge  by  the  remains  actually  found, 
the  chief  material  of  the  helmet  was  iron ; 3 copper  was  used 
only  for  the  rings  and  the  half-disk  in  front,  which  were  inlaid 
into  the  harder  metal. 

As  if  to  compensate  themselves  for  the  uniformity  to  which 
they  submitted  in  this  instance,  the  Assyrians  indulged  in  a 
great  variety  of  crested  helmets.  We  cannot  positively  say 
that  they  invented  the  crest;4  but  they  certainly  dealt  with  it 


Assyrian  crested  helmets,  from  the  bas-reliefs. 


in  the  free  spirit  which  is  usually  seen  where  a custom  is  of 
home  growth  and  not  a foreign  importation.  They  used  either 
a plain  metal  crest,  or  one  surmounted  by  tufts  of  hair ; and 
they  either  simply  curved  the  crest  forwards  over  the  front  of 


3 Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  vol.  ii.  p. 
339.  In  later  times,  if  we  may  believe 
Herodotus,  the  material  of  the  Assyrian 
helmets  was  bronze.  (Herod,  vii.  63.) 

4 The  statement  of  Herodotus  (i.  171) 
that  crests  were  invented  by  the  Carians 
is  not  worth  very  much  ; but  it  at  least 
indicates  his  belief  that  the  crest  was 
adopted  by  the  Greeks  from  the  Asiatics. 
The  first  distinct  evidence  we  have  of 


them  is  in  the  Egyptian  representations 
of  the  Shairetana,  about  n.c.  1200.  Homer 
ascribes  them  to  the  Greeks  in  the  time 
of  the  Trojan  War,  which  was  perhaps 
earlier  than  this ; and  they  must  at  any 
rate  have  been  common  in  Greece  in  his 
own  age,  which  was  probably  the  9th 
century  b.c.  We  cannot  prove  that  they 
were  known  to  the  Assyrians  much  before 
b.c.  700. 


Chap.  VII. 


COATS  OF  MAIL. 


443 


the  helmet,  or  extended  it  and  carried  it  backwards  also.  In 
this  latter  case  they  generally  made  the  curve  a complete  semi- 
circle, while  occasionally  they  were  content  with  a small  seg- 
ment, less  even  than  a quarter  of  a circle.5  They  also  varied 
considerably  the  shape  of  the  lappet  over  the  ear,  and  the  depth 
of  the  helmet  behind  and  before  the  lappet. 

Assyrian  coats  of  mail  were  of  three  sizes,  and  of  two  dif- 
ferent constructions.  In  the  earlier  times  they  were  worn  long, 
descending  either  to  the  feet  or  to  the 
knees;  and  at  this  period  they  seem  to 
have  been  composed  simply  of  successive 
rows  of  similar  iron  scales  sewn  on  to  a 
shirt  of  linen  or  felt.  Under  the  later 
monarchs  the  coat  of  mail  reached  no 
lower  than  the  waist,  and  it  was  composed 
of  alternate  bands  of  dissimilar  arrange- 
ment and  perhaps  of  different  material. 

Mr.  Layard  suggests  that  at  this  time  the 
scales,  which  were  larger  than  before,  were 
“ fastened  to  bands  of  iron  or  copper.” 6 But  it  is  perhaps  more 
probable  that  scales  of  the  old  character  alternated  in  rows 
with  scales  of  a new  shape  and  smaller 
dimensions.  The  old  scales  were  oblong, 
squared  at  one  end  and  rounded  at  the 
other,  very  much  resembling  the  Egyptian. 

They  were  from  two  to  three  inches,  or 
more,  in  length,  and  were  placed  side  by 
side,  so  that  their  greater  length  corre- 
sponded with  the  height  of  the  wearer. 

The  new  scales  seem  to  have  been  not 
more  than  an  inch  long ; they  appear  to  have  been  pointed  at 
one  end,  and  to  have  been  laid  horizontally,  each  a little  over- 
lapping its  fellow.7  It  was  probably  found  that  this  construction, 
while  possessing  quite  as  much  strength  as  the  other,  was  moie 
favourable  to  facility  of  movement. 


Scale  (Egyptian). 


<<<<<<<<<<<  ■ 

Arrangement  of  scales  in 
Assyrian  scale-armour 
of  the  second  period 
(Khorsabad). 


5 See  Fig.  5,  which  is  taken  from  the  Khorsabad  sculptures. 

6 See  Nineveh  and  its  Nemccins,  vol.  ii.  p.  336.  7 See  above,  p.  431. 


444 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Remains  of  armour  belonging  to  the  second  period  have  been 
discovered  in  the  Assyrian  ruins.8  The  scales  are  frequently 
embossed  over  their  whole  surface  with  groups  of  figures  and 
fanciful  ornaments.  The  small  scales  of  the  first  period  have 
no  such  elaborate  ornamentation,  being  simply  embossed  in  the 
centre  with  a single  straight  line,  which  is  of  copper  inlaid  into 
the  iron.9 

The  Assyrian  coat  of  mail,  like  the  Egyptian,10  had  com- 
monly a short  sleeve,  extending  about  half 
way  down  to  the  elbow.  This  was  either 
composed  of  scales  set  similarly  to  those 
of  the  rest  of  the  cuirass,1  or  of  two,  three, 
or  more  rows  placed  at  right  angles  to  the 
others.  The  greater  part  of  the  arm  was 
left  without  any  protection. 

A remarkable  variety  existed  in  the  form 
Sleeve  of  a coat  of  mail—  and  construction  of  the  Assyrian  shields, 
period^ (Nimrud)thefirst  ^he  most  imposing  kind  is  that  which  has 
been  termed  the  gerrhon , from  its  apparent 
resemblance  to  the  Persian  shield  mentioned  under  that  name  by 
Herodotus.2  This  was  a structure  in  wickerwork,  which  equalled 
or  exceeded  the  warrior  in  height,  and  which  was  broad  enough 
to  give  shelter  to  two  or  even  three  men.  In  shape  it  was  either 
an  oblong  square,  or  such  a square  with  a projection  at  top,  which 
stood  out  at  right  angles  to  the  body  of  the  shield ; or,  lastly, 
and  most  usually,  it  curved  inwards  from  a certain  height,  gra- 
dually narrowing  at  the  same  time  and  finally  ending  in  a 
point.  Of  course  a shield  of  this  vast  size,  even  although 
formed  of  a light  material,  was  too  heavy  to  be  very  readily 
carried  upon  the  arm.  The  plan  adopted  was  to  rest  it  upon 
the  ground,  on  which  it  was  generally  held  steady  by  a warrior 
armed  with  sword  or  spear,  while  his  comrade,  whose  weapon 


8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 
vol.  ii.  p.  336,  and  note. 

9 Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  340 ; and  vol.  ii.  p. 
335. 

10  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  1st 
Series,  vol.  i.  p.  331.  In  the  Egyptian 


corselet  the  plates  of  the  sleeves  were  not 
set  at  right  angles  to  those  of  the  body. 

1 As  in  the  representation  given  on 
p.  431. 

2 Herod,  vii.  61 ; ix.  61  and  99.  Com- 
pare Xen.  Inst.  Cyr.  i.  2,  § 9,  &c. 


Chap.  VII.  SHIELDS.  445 

was  the  bow,  discharged  his  arrows  from  behind  its  shelter.  Its 
proper  place  was  in  sieges,  where  the  roof-like  structure  at  the 
top  was  especially  useful  in  warding  off  the  stones  and  other 
missiles  which  the  besieged  threw  down  upon  their  assailants. 
We  sometimes  see  it  employed  by  single  soldiers,  who  lean  the 


point  against  the  wall 3 of  the  place,  and,  ensconcing  themselves 
beneath  the  penthouse  thus  improvised,  proceed  to  carry  on  the 
most  critical  operations  of  the  siege  in  almost  complete  security. 

Modifications  of  this  shield,  reducing  it  to  a smaller  and  more 
portable  size,  were  common  in  the  earlier  times,  when  among 
the  shields  most  usually  borne  we  find  one  of  wickerwork, 
oblong-square  in  shape,  and  either  perfectly  flat,  or  else  curving 
slightly  inwards  both  at  top  and  at  bottom.4  This  shield  was 
commonly  about  half  the  height  of  a man,  or  a little  more  ; it 


3 See  the  woodcut,  p.  446.  The 
Egyptians  supported  their  large  shields 
with  a crutch  sometimes.  (Wilkinson, 

in  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  iv.  pp.  80, 


81.)  We  have  no  evidence  that  the 
Assyrians  did  the  same. 

4 See  the  woodcuts  on  pp.  '429  and 
431. 


446 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


was  often  used  as  a protection  for  two,5  but  must  have  been 
scanty  for  that  purpose. 

Round  shields  were  commoner  in  Assyria  than  any  others. 

They  were  used  by  most  of  those  who 
fought  in  chariots,  by  the  early  monarchs’ 
personal  attendants,  by  the  cross-belted 
spearmen,  and  by  many  of  the  spearmen 
who  guarded  archers.  In  the  most  an- 
cient times  they  seem  to  have  been 
universally  made  of  solid  metal,  and  con- 
sequently they  were  small,  perhaps  not 
often  exceeding  two  feet,  or  two  feet  and 
a half,  in  diameter.6  They  were  managed 
by  means  of  a very  simple  handle,  placed 
in  the  middle  of  the  shield  at  the  back, 
and  fastened  to  it  by  studs  or  nails,  which 
was  not  passed  over  the  arm  but  grasped 

Soldier  undermining  a wall,  1 

sheltered  by  gerrhon. 

so  as  to  form  a deep  groove  all  round  the 
edge.  The  material  of  which  these  shields  were  composed  was 
in  some  cases  certainly  bronze;8  in  others  it  may  have  been 
iron  ; in  a few  silver,  or  even  gold.9  Some  metal  shields  were 
perfectly  plain ; others  exhibited  a number  of  concentric  rings ; 10 
others  again  were  inlaid  or  embossed  with  tasteful  and  elaborate 
patterns. 

Among  the  later  Assyrians  the  round  metal  shield  seems  to 
have  been  almost  entirely  disused,  its  place  being  supplied  by 
a wicker  buckler  of  the  same  shape,  with  a rim  round  the  edge 
made  of  solid  wood  or  of  metal,  and  sometimes  with  a boss  in 


by  the  hand.7  The  rim  was  bent  inwards, 


5 Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis. 
17,  19,  20. 

6 The  bronze  shields  found  by  Mr. 
Layard  at  Nimrud,  one  of  which  is  re- 
presented in  his  Nineveh  and  Babylon 
(p.  193),  had  a diameter  of  feet.  If 
we  may  trust  the  sculptures,  a smaller 
size  was  more  common. 

7 See  woodcut,  p.  439.  The  Greeks 

passed  their  arm  through  the  bar  at 

the  centre  of  the  shield,  and  grasped  a 


leathern  thong  near  the  rim  with  their 
hand.  (See  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol. 
i.  p.  306.) 

8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  194. 

9 Shields  of  gold  were  taken  from  the 
servants  of  Hadadezer,  king  of  Zobah 
(2  Sam.  viii.  7),  by  David.  Solomon 
made  800  such  shields  (1  K.  x.  17). 
Croesus  dedicated  a golden  shield  at  the 
temple  of  Amphiaraiis  (Herod,  i.  52). 

10  Supra,  p.  411. 


Chap.  YIL 


SHIELDS. 


447 


the  centre.11  The  weight  of  the  metal  shields  must  have  been 
considerable ; and  this  both  limited  their  size  and  made  it  diffi- 


Round  shields  or  targes,  patterned  (Khorsabad). 

cult  to  move  them  with  rapidity.  With  the  change  of  material 
we  perceive  a decided  increase  of  magnitude ; the  diameter  of 
the  wicker  buckler  being  often  fully  half  the  warrior’s  height, 
or  not  much  short  of  three  feet. 

Convex  shields,  generally  of  an  oblong  form,  were  also  in 
common  use  during  the  later 
period,  and  one  kind  is  found 
in  the  very  earliest  sculptures. 

This  is  of  small  dimensions  and 
of  a clumsy  make.12  Its  curve 
is  slight,  and  it  is  generally 
ornamented  with  a perpendicu- 
lar row  of  spikes  or  teeth,  in 
the  centre  of  which  we  often  see 
the  head  of  a lion. 

The  convex  shields  of  later 
date  were  very  much  larger  than 
these.  They  were  sometimes 
square  at  bottom  and  rounded  at  top,  in  which  case  they  were 
either  made  of  wickerwork,  or  (apparently)  of  metal.13  These 
latter  had  generally  a boss  in  the  centre,  and  both  this  and  the 


Convex  shields  with  teeth  (Nimrud). 


11  For  representations  of  round  wicker 
bucklers,  see  pp.  434  and  439. 

12  A representation  of  this  shield  in 


its  simplest  form  is  given  on  p.  429. 
13  See  above,  pp.  439  and  440. 


44§ 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


edge  of  the  shield  were  often  ornamented  with  a row  of  rosettes 
or  rings.  Shields  of  this  shape  were  from  four  to  five  feet  in 
height,  and  protected  the  warrior  from  the  head  to  the  knee. 


convex  shield  of  the  Egyptians,  which  they  greatly  resembled. 

The  more  ordinary  con- 


the  edge  and  round  the  boss  at  the  centre ; the  space  between 
the  bands  being  frequently  patterned,  with  rings  or  otherwise. 
Like  the  other  form  of  convex  shield,  it  could  be  slung  at  the 

1 For  a representation  of  the  Greek  shield,  see  Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Greek  and 
Roman  Antiquities , ad  voc.  Clipeus. 


Egyptian  convex  shield,  worn  on  back.  Assyrian  ditto  (Koyunjik). 


On  a march  they  were  often  worn  upon  the  back,  like  the 


vex  shield  was  of  an  oval 
form,  like  the  convex 
shield  of  the  Greeks,1  but 
larger  and  with  a more 
prominent  centre.  In  its 
greater  diameter  it  must 
often  have  exceeded  five 
feet,  though  no  doubt  some- 
times it  was  smaller.  It 
was  generally  ornamented 
with  narrow  bands  round 


Assyrian  convex  shield,  resembling  the  Greek 
(Koyunjik). 


Chap.  YU. 


JAVELINS  AND  BOWS. 


449 


/fep» 


Quiver,  with  arrows  and 
javelin  (Nimrud). 


back,2  and  was  so  carried  on  marches,  on  crossing  rivers,3  and 
other  similar  occasions. 

The  offensive  arms  certainly  used  by  the  Assyrians  were  the 
bow,  the  spear,  the  sword,  the  mace,  the 
sling,  the  axe  or  hatchet,  and  the  dagger. 

They  may  also  have  occasionally  made  use 
of  the  javelin,  which  is  sometimes  seen 
among  the  arrows  of  a quiver.  But  the 
actual  employment  of  this  weapon  in  war 
has  not  yet  been  found  upon  the  bas-reliefs. 

If  faithfully  represented,  it  must  have  been 
very  short,  scarcely,  if  at  all,  exceeding  three 
feet.4 

Assyrian  bows  were  of  two  kinds,  curved 
and  angular.  Compared  with  the  Egyptian,5  and  with  the  bows 
used  by  the  archers  of  the  middle  ages,  they  were  short,  the 
greatest  length  of  the  strung  bow  being  about  four  feet.  They 
seem  to  have  been  made  of  a single  piece  of  wood,  which  in  the 
angular  bow  was  nearly  of  the  same  thick- 
ness throughout,  but  in  the  curved  one 
tapered  gradually  towards  the  two  ex- 
tremities. At  either  end  was  a small  knob 
or  button,  in  the  later  times  often  carved 
into  the  representation  of  a ducks  head. 

Close  above  this  was  a notch  or  groove, 
whereby  the  string  was  held  in  place.  The 
mode  of  stringing  was  one  still  frequently 
practised  in  the  East.  The  bowman  stooped, 
and  placing  his  right  knee  against  the  middle  of  the  bow  on 
its  inner  side,  pressed  it  downwards,  at  the  same  time  drawing 
the  two  ends  of  the  bow  upwards  with  his  two  hands.  A com- 
rade stood  by,  and,  when  the  ends  were  brought  sufficiently  near, 
slipped  the  string  over  the  knob  into  the  groove,  where  it 


Ornamented  end  of  bow 
(Khorsabad). 


2 See  the  woodcut  on  p.  438. 

3 Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 2nd 
Series,  PI.  41.  Compare  infra,  p.  464. 

4 The  Roman  pilum , which  is  com- 
monly called  a javelin,  exceeded  six  feet. 

VOL.  I. 


The  Greek  y poo-Qos,  or  dart,  was  nearly 
four  feet. 

5 See  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , 
1st  Series,  vol.  i.  pp.  304,  305. 

2 G 


450 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


necessarily  remained.  The  bend  of  the  bow,  thus  strung,  was 
slight.  When  full  drawn,  however,  it  took  the  shape  of  a half- 


stringing  the  bow  (Koyunjik). 


moon,  which  shows  that  it  must  have  possessed  great  elasticity. 
The  bow  was  known  to  be  full  drawn  when  the  head  of  the  arrow 
touched  the  archer’s  left  hand. 


Assyrian  curved  bow. 


The  Assyrian  angular  bow  was  of  smaller  size  than  the  curved 
one.  It  was  not  often  carried  unless  as  a reserve  by  those  who 
also  possessed  the  larger  and  better  weapon. 


Assyrian  angular  bow. 


Bows  were  but  seldom  unstrung.  When  not  in  use,  they  were 
carried  strung,  the  archer  either  holding  them  by  the  middle 
with  his  left  hand,  or  putting  his  arm  through  them,  and  letting 


Chap.  VII. 


BOWS  — QUIVERS. 


451 


them  rest  upon  his  shoulder,6  or  finally  carrying  them  at  his 
back  in  a bow-case.  The  bow-case  was  a portion  of  the  quiver, 
as  frequently  with  the  Greeks,7  and  held 
only  the  lower  half  of  the  bow,  the 
upper  portion  projecting  from  it. 

Quivers  were  carried  by  foot  and 
horse  archers  at  their  backs,  in  a dia- 
gonal position,  so  that  the  arrows  could 
readily  be  drawn  from  them  over  the 
right  shoulder.  They  were  commonly 
slung  in  this  position  by  a strap  of  their 
own,  attached  to  two  rings,  one  near 
the  top  and  the  other  near  the  bottom 
of  the  quiver,  which  the  archer  slipped 
over  his  left  arm  and  his  head.  Some- 
times, however,  this  strap  seems  to  have  been  wanting,  and 
the  quiver  was  either  thrust  through  one  of  the  cross-belts,  or 


Mode  of  carrying  the  bow  in  a 
how-case  (Koyunjik). 


attached  by  a strap  which  passed  horizontally  round  the  body 
a little  above  the  girdle.8  The  archers  who  rode  in  chariots 
carried  their  quivers  at  the  chariot’s  side,  in  the  manner  which 
has  been  already  described  and  illustrated.9 


6 Mr.  Layard  says  that  the  warrior 
carried  the  how  upon  his  shoulders, 

“ having  first  passed  his  head  through 

it.”  (Vm.  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  342.) 

This  may  have  been  the  case  sometimes, 
hut  generally  both  ends  of  the  bow  are 


seen  on  the  same  side  of  the  head. 

7 See  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman 
Antiquities , p.  126,  2nd  edition. 

8 See  the  woodcut,  p.  437. 

9 Supra,  pp.  412  and  414. 


2 a 2 


452 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


The  ornamentation  of  quivers  was  generally  elaborate.  Ro- 
settes and  bands  constituted  their  most  usual  adornment ; but 

sometimes  these  gave  place  to  de- 
signs of  a more  artistic  character, 
as  wild  bulls,  griffins,  and  other 
mythic  figures.  Several  examples 
of  a rich  type  have  been  already 
given  in  the  representations  of  cha- 
riots,10 but  none  exhibit  this  pecu- 
liarity. One  further  specimen  of  a 
chariot  quiver  is  therefore  appended, 
which  is  among  the  most  tasteful 
hitherto  discovered. 

The  quivers  of  the  foot  and  horse 
archers  were  less  richly  adorned 
than  those  of  the  bowmen  who  rode 
in  chariots,  but  still  they  were  in 
almost  every  case  more  or  less  pat- 
terned. The  rosette  and  the  band 
here  too  constituted  the  chief  re- 
source of  the  artist,  who,  however, 
often  introduced  with  good  effect 
other  well-known  ornaments,  as  the 
guilloche,  the  boss  and  cross,  the 
zigzag,  &c. 

Sometimes  the  quiver  had  an 
ornamented  rod  attached  to  it,  which 
projected  beyond  the  arrows  and 
terminated  in  a pomegranate  blos- 
som or  other  similar  carving.  To 
this  rod  were  attached  the  rings 
which  received  the  quiver  strap,  a 
triple  tassel  hanging  from  them  at  the 
Quivers  of  the  ordinary  character.  p0]*nt  of  attachment.  The  strap  was 

probably  of  leather,  and  appears  to  have  been  twisted  or  plaited. 


Quiver,  with  rich  ornamentation 
(Nimrud). 


MM 

w 

1 

I 

p 

-j 

w 

'HI 

i 

10  Supra,  pp.  412,  414,  and  416. 


Chap.  VII. 


QUIVERS. 


453 


It  is  uncertain  whether  the  material  of  the  quivers  was  wood 
or  metal.  As,  however,  no  remains  of  quivers  have  been  dis- 
covered in  any  of  the  ruins,  while  helmets,  shields,  daggers, 
spear-heads,  and  arrow-heads  have  been  found  in  tolerable  abun- 
dance, we  may  perhaps  assume  that  they  were  of  the  more 
fragile  substance,  which  would  account  for  their  destruction. 


Quiver  with  projecting  rod  (Khorsabad). 


In  this  case  their  ornamentation  may  have  been  either  by 
carving  or  painting,1  the  bosses  and  rosettes  being  perhaps  in 
some  cases  of  metal,  mother-of-pearl,  or 
ivory.  Ornaments  of  this  kind  were 
discovered  by  hundreds  at  Nimrud  in  a 
chamber  which  contained  arms  of  many 
descriptions.2  Quivers  have  in  some 
cases  a curious  rounded  head,  which 
seems  to  have  been  a lid  or  cap  used 
for  covering  the  arrows.3  They  have 
also,  occasionally,  instead  of  this,  a kind 
of  bag4  at  their  top,  which  falls  back- 
wards and  is  ornamented  with  tassels. 

Both  these  constructions,  however,  are  exceptional,  a very  large 
majority  of  the  quivers  being  open  and  having  the  feathered 
ends  of  the  arrows  projecting  from  them. 


Assyrian  covered  quivers 
(Koyunjik). 


1 In  the  Khorsabad  sculptures  the 
quivers  not  unfrequently  showed  traces 
of  paint.  The  colour  was  sometimes  red, 
sometimes  blue.  (See  pp.  363,  364.) 

2 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  177. 

3 The  lid  was  probably  attached  to  the 
back  of  the  quiver  by  a hinge,  and  was 

made  so  that  it  could  stand  open.  The 
Assyrian  artists  generally  represent  it  in 


this  position.  The  quiver,  of  which  it 
was  the  top,  must  also  have  been  round. 

4 Possibly  this  bag  may  be  the  upper 
part  of  a bow-case  attached  to  the  quiver, 
which,  being  made  of  a flexible  material, 
fell  back  when  the  bow  was  removed. 
Such  a construction  was  common  in 
Egypt.  (Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians y 
1st  Series,  vol.  i.  pp.  345-347.) 


454 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


There  is  nothing  remarkable  in  the  Assyrian  arrows  except 
their  perfect  finish  and  completeness  in  all  that  constitutes  the 
excellence  of  such  a weapon.  The  shaft  was  thin  and  straight, 
and  was  probably  of  reed,  or  of  some  light  and  tough  wood.5 
The  head  was  of  metal,6  either  of  bronze  or  iron,  and  was 
generally  diamond-shaped,  like  a miniature  spear-head.  It  was 
flattish,  and  for  greater  strength  had  commonly  a strongly 
raised  line  down  the  centre.  The  lower  end  was  hollowed,  and 
the  shaft  was  inserted  into  it.  The  notching  and  feathering 


Bronze  arrow-heads  (Nimrud  and  Koyunjik). 


of  the  shaft  were  carefully  attended  to.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
three  feathers  were  used,  as  by  ourselves  and  by  the  Egyptians,7 
or  two  only,  as  by  many  nations.  The  fact  that  we  never  see 
more  than  two  feathers  upon  the  monuments  cannot  be  con- 


5 Mr.  Layard’s  conjecture  that  the 
numerous  iron  rods  which  he  discovered 
at  Nimrud  were  “ shafts  of  arrows  ” 
(Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  194)  does  not 
seem  to  me  very  happy.  The  burnishing 
of  arrows  mentioned  in  Scripture  almost 
certainly  alludes  to  the  points.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  such  clumsy  and  incon- 
venient things  as  metal  shafts  were  ever 
used  by  any  nation. 

u A few  stone  arrow-heads  have  been 
found  in  the  Assyrian  ruins.  They  are 

pear-shaped  and  of  fine  flint,  chipped 


into  form.  The  metal  arrow-heads  are 
in  a few  instances  barbed. 

7 Wilkinson,  vol.  i.  p.  309. 


Flint  arrow-head  (Nimrud). 


Chap.  VII. 


ARROWS. 


455 


sidered  decisive,  since  the  Assyrian  artists,  from  their  small 
knowledge  of  perspective,  would  have  been  unable  to  represent 
all  three  feathers.  So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  representa- 
tions, it  would  seem  that  the  feathers  were  glued  to  the  wood 

Assyrian  arrow. 

exactly  as  they  are  with  ourselves.  The  notch  was  somewhat 
large,  projecting  beyond  the  line  of  the  shaft — a construction 
rendered  necessary  by  the  thickness  of  the  bowstring,  which  was 
seldom  less  than  that  of  the  arrow  itself. 

The  mode  of  drawing  the  bow  was  peculiar.  It  was  drawn 
neither  to  the  ear,  nor  to  the  breast,  but  to  the  shoulder.  In 
the  older  sculptures  the  hand  that  draws  it  is  represented  in  a 
curiously  cramped  and  unnatural  position,8  which  can  scarcely 
be  supposed  to  be  true 
to  nature.  But  in 
the  later  bas-reliefs 
greater  accuracy 
seems  to  have  been 
attained,  and  there  we 
probably  see  the  ex- 
act mode  in  which 
the  shooting  was  ac- 
tually managed.  The 
arrow  was  taken  be- 


Mode  of  drawing  the  bow  (Koyunjik). 


low  the  feathers  by  the  thumb  and  fore-finger  of  the  right  hand, 
the  fore-finger  bent  down  upon  it  in  the  way  represented  in  the 
accompanying  woodcut,  and  the  notch  being  then  placed  upon 
the  string,  the  arrow  was  drawn  backwards  by  the  thumb  and 
fore-finger  only,  the  remaining  three  fingers  taking  no  part  in 
the  operation.  The  bow  was  grasped  by  the  left  hand  between 
the  fingers  and  the  muscle  of  the  thumb,  the  thumb  itself  being 
raised,  and  the  arrow  made  to  pass  between  it  and  the  bow,  by 
which  means  it  was  kept  in  place  and  prevented  from  slipping. 


Supra,  p.  429. 


456 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


The  arrow  was  then  drawn  till  the  cold  metal  head  touched  the 
fore-finger  of  the  left  hand,  upon  which  the  right  hand  quitted 
its  hold,  and  the  shaft  sped  on  its  way.  To  save  the  left  arm 


from  being  bruised  or  cut  by  the  bowstring,  a guard,  often  simply 
yet  effectively  ornamented,  was  placed  upon  it,  at  one  end 
passing  round  the  thumb  and  at  the  other  round  the  arm  a 
little  above  the  elbow. 

The  Assyrians  had  two  kinds  of  spears,  one  a comparatively 
short  weapon,  varying  from  five  to  six  feet  in  length,  with 
which  they  armed  a portion  of  their  foot  soldiers,  the  other  a 
weapon  nine  or  ten  feet  long,  which  was  carried  by  most  of 


their  cavalry.1  The  shaft  seems  in  both  cases  to  have  been 
of  wood,  and  the  head  was  certainly  of  metal,  either  bronze 
or  iron.2  It  was  most  usually  diamond-shaped,  but  sometimes 
the  side  angles  were  rounded  off,  and  the  contour  became  that 
of  an  elongated  pear.  In  other  instances,  the  jambs  of  the 
spear-head  were  exceedingly  short,  and  the  point  long  and 
tapering.  The  upper  end  of  the  shaft  was  sometimes  weighted,3 

1 See  above,  pp.  425  and  426.  and  Bab.  p.  194.) 

2 Both  bronze  and  iron  spear-heads  3 See  the  illustration  on  p.  434. 

were  found  at  Nimrud.  (Layard,  Nin. 


Chap.  VII. 


SPEARS  — SWORDS. 


457 


and  it  was  often  carved  into  some  ornamental  form,  as  a fir-cone 
or  a pomegranate  blossom,  while  in  the  earlier  times  it  was 
further  occasionally  adorned  with  streamers.  The  spear  of  the 


Spear-heads,  from  the  Sculptures. 


Ornamented  ends  of  spear-shafts 
(Nimrud). 


Assyrians  seems  never  to  have  been  thrown,  like  that  of 
the  Greeks,  but  was  only  used  to  thrust  with,  as  a pike. 

The  common  sword  of  the  Assyrians  was  a short  straight 
weapon,  like  the  sword  of  the  Egyptians,  or  the  acinaces  of  the 
Persians.4  It  w;as  worn  at  the  left 
side,  generally  slung  by  a belt  of 
its  own  which  was  passed  over  the 
right  shoulder,  but  sometimes  thrust 
through  the  girdle  or  (apparently) 
through  the  armour.5  It  had  a short 
rounded  handle,  more  or  less  orna- 
mented, but  without  any  cross-bar  or  guard,6  and  a short  blade 
which  tapered  gradually  from  the  handle  to  the  point.  The 
swordsman  commonly  thrust  with  his  weapon,  but  he  could  cut 


Ornamented  handle  of  short  sword 
(Khorsabad). 


4 Representations  of  the  Persian  aci- 
ri'ices  will  be  given  in  a future  volume. 
The  reader  may  likewise  consult  the 
author’s  Herodotus , vol.  iv.  pp.  52,  53. 

5 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  ii. 
PI.  99. 

6 Mr.  Layard  says  ( Nineveh  and  its 
Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  298)  that  the  swords 


had  often  a cross-bar  made  of  two  lions’ 
heads,  with  part  of  the  neck  and 
shoulders.  But  a careful  examination  of 
the  monuments,  or  even  of  Mr.  Layard’s 
own  drawings,  will  (I  think)  convince 
any  one  that  the  ornament  in  question 
is  part  of  the  sheath.  It  is  never  seen 
on  a drawn  sword. 


458 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


with  it  likewise,  for  it  was  with  this  arm  that  the  Assyrian 
warrior  was  wont  to  decapitate  his  fallen  enemy.  The  sheath  of 


Sheathed  sword  (Koyunjik). 


the  sword  was  almost  always  tastefully  designed,  and  sometimes 

possessed  artistic  excellence  of  a 
high  order.  The  favourite  ter- 

minal ornament  consisted  of  two 
lions  clasping  one  another,  with 
their  heads  averted  and  their  mouths 
agape.  Above  this,  patterns  in  ex- 

Ornamented  handle  of  longer  sword  cellent  taste  Usually  adorned  the 
(Nimrud).  _ . _ _ . _ J _ ..  . _ 

scabbard,  which  moreover  exhibited 
occasionally  groups  of  figures,  sacred  trees,  and  other  mytho- 
logical objects. 

Instead  of  the  short  sword,  the  earlier  warriors  had  a weapon 
of  a considerable  length.  This  was  invariably  slung  at  the  side 
by  a cross-belt  passing  over  the  shoulder.  In  its  ornamentation 
it  closely  resembled  the  later  short  sword,  but  its  hilt  was 
longer  and  more  tasteful. 

One  or  two  instances  occur  where  the  sword  of  an  Assyrian 
warrior  is  represented  as  curved  slightly.  The  sheath  in  these 
cases  is  plain,  and  terminates  in  a button. 


Assyrian  curved  sword  (Khorsabad). 


The  Assyrian  mace  was  a short  thin  weapon,  and  must  either 
have  been  made  of  a very  tough  wood,  or — and  this  is  more 
probable — of  metal.  It  had  an  ornamented  head,  which  was 
sometimes  very  beautifully  modelled,  and  generally  a strap  or 
string  at  the  lower  end,  by  which  it  could  be  grasped  with 


Chap.  VII. 


MACES  AND  BATTLE-AXES. 


459 


Head  of  royal  mace  (Khorsabad). 


greater  firmness.  Foot  archers  frequently  carried  it  in  battle, 
especially  those  who  were  in  close  attendance  upon  the  king’s 
person.  It  seems,  however,  not 
to  have  been  often  used  as  a 
warlike  weapon  until  the  time  of 
the  latest  sculptures,  when  we  see 
it  wielded,  generally  with  both 
hands,  by  a certain  number  of 
the  combatants.7  In  peace  it 
was  very  commonly  borne  by  the 
royal  attendants,  and  it  seems  also 
to  have  been  among  the  weapons 
used  by  the  monarch  himself,  for 
whom  it  is  constantly  carried  by 
one  of  those  who  wait  most  closely 
upon  his  person. 

The  battle-axe  was  a weapon 
but  rarely  employed  by  the  As- 
syrians. It  is  only  in  the  very 
latest  sculptures  and  in  a very 
few  instances  that  we  find  axes  1 
represented  as  used  by  the  warriors 
for  any  other  purpose  besides  the 
felling  of  trees.  Where  they  are  * 1 
seen  in  use  against  the  enemy,  ^ 

the  handle  is  short,  the  head 
somewhat  large,  and  the  weapon 
wielded  with  one  hand.  Battle- 
axes  had  heads  of  two  kinds. 

Some  were  made  with  two  blades, 
like  the  bipennis  of  the  Romans,  ...  , 

/ T1.  Assyrian  battle-axes  (Koyunjik). 

and  the  labra  ot  the  Lydians  and 

Carians;8  others  more  nearly  resembled  the  weapons  used  by 


Maces,  from  the  Sculptures. 


7 See  Layard’s  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 

PI.  46. 

8 See  Fellows’  Lycia,  p.  75,  and  PI.  35, 
Figs.  4 and  5.  A two-headed  axe  is 
likewise  represented  in  some  very  early 
sculptures,  supposed  to  be  Scythic,  found 


by  M.  Texier  in  Cappadocia. 


Scythian  battle-axe. 


460 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


our  own  knights  in  the  middle  ages,  having  a single  blade, 
and  a mere  ornamental  point  on  the  other  side  of  the  haft. 

The  dagger  was  worn  by  the  Assyrian  kings  at  almost  all 
times  in  their  girdles,  and  was  further  often  assigned  to  the 


Ornamented  handles  of  daggers  (Nimrud).  Handle  of  dagger,  with  chain 

(Nimrud). 

mythic  winged  beings,  hawk-headed  or  human-headed,  which 
occur  so  frequently  in  the  sculptures ; but  it  seems  to  have 
been  very  seldom  carried  by  subjects.9  It  had  commonly  a 
straight  handle,  slightly  concave,  and  very  richly  chased,  ex- 
hibiting the  usual  Assyrian  patterns,  rosettes,  chevrons,  guil- 
loches,  pine-cones,  and  the  like.  Sometimes,  however,  it  was 
still  more  artistically  shaped,  being  cast  into  the  form  of  a 
horse’s  head  and  neck.  In  this  case  there  was  occasionally  a 
chain  attached  at  one  end  to  the  horse’s  chin,  and  at  the  other 
to  the  bottom  of  his  neck,  which,  passing  outside  the  hand, 
would  give  it  a firmer  hold  on  the  weapon.  The  sheaths  of 
daggers  seem  generally  to  have  been  plain,  or  nearly  so,  but 
occasionally  they  terminated  in  the  head  of  an  animal,  from 
whose  mouth  depended  a tassel. 

Though  the  Assyrian  troops  were  not  marshalled  by  the  aid 
of  standards,  like  the  Eoman  and  the  Egyptian,  yet  still  a kind 


9 I distinguish  between  the  dagger 
and  the  short  sword.  The  place  of  the 
former  is  on  the  right  side ; and  it  is 
worn  invariably  in  the  girdle.  The 
place  of  the  latter  is  by  the  left  hip,  and 
it  hangs  almost  always  from  a cross-belt. 
When  Mr.  Layard  says  that  “ the  dagger 
appears  to  have  been  carried  by  all , both 
in  time  of  peace  and  war  ” (. Nineveh  and 
its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  342),  he  must  be 


understood  as  not  making  this  distinc- 
tion. 

The  only  place,  so  far  as  I know, 
where  a subject  carries  a dagger,  is  on 
the  slab  represented  by  Mr.  Layard  in 
his  1st  Series  of  Monuments , PI.  23, 
where  it  is  borne  by  one  of  the  royal 
attendants.  In  PI.  31,  the  hunter  who 
hears  two  daggers  in  his  girdle  is  un- 
doubtedly the  monarch  himself. 


Chap.  VII.  ST  ANDARDS  — MILITARY  ORGANISATION. 


461 


Sheaths  of  daggers  (Nimrud), 


of  standard  is  occasionally  to  be  recognised  in  tbe  bas-reliefs. 
This  consists  of  a pole  of  no  great  height,  fixed  upright  at  the 
front  of  a chariot,  between  the  cha- 
rioteer and  the  warrior,  and  carrying 
at  the  top  a circular  frame,  within 
which  are  artistic  representations  of 
gods  or  sacred  animals.  Two  bulls, 
bjtck  to  back,  either  trotting  or  run- 
ning at  speed,  are  a favourite  device. 

Above  them  sometimes  stands  a 
figure  in  a horned  cap,  shooting  his 
arrows  against  the  enemy.  Occa- 
sionally only  one  bull  is  represented, 
and  the  archer  shoots  standing  upon 
the  bull’s  back.10  Below  the  circular 
framework  are  minor  ornaments,  as 
lions’  and  bulls’  heads,  or  streamers 
adorned  with  tassels.11 

We  do  not  obtain  much  informa- 
tion from  the  monuments  with  re- 
spect to  the  military  organisation  or 
the  tactics  of  the  Assyrians.  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  they  had  ad- 
vanced beyond  the  first  period  in 
military  matters,  when  men  fight  in 
a confused  mass  of  mingled  horse, 
foot,  and  chariots,  heavy-armed  and 
light-armed,  spearmen,  archers,  and 
slingers,  each  standing  and  moving 
as  mere  chance  may  determine.  It 
is  even  certain  that  they  had  ad- 
vanced beyond  the  second  period, 
when  the  phalanx  order  of  battle  is  adopted,  the  confused  mass 
being  replaced  by  a single  serried  body  presenting  its  best  armed 


Assyrian  standard  (Khorsabad). 


10  See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  PI.  14.  Compare  Nineveh  and  its 
Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  347. 


27. 


11  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis.  14  and 


462 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


troops  to  the  enemy  and  keeping  in  the  rear,  to  add  their 
weight  to  the  charge,  the  weaker  and  more  imperfectly  pro- 
tected. It  was  not  really  left  for  Cyaxares  the  Mede  to  “ be 
the  first  to  organise  an  Asiatic  army — to  divide  the  troops  into 
companies  and  form  distinct  bodies  of  the  spearmen,  the  archers, 
and  the  cavalry.” 1 The  Assyrian  troops  were  organised  in  this 
way,  at  least  from  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  on  whose  sculptures 
we  find,  in  the  first  place,  bodies  of  cavalry  on  the  march 
unaccompanied  by  infantry ; 2 secondly,  engagements  where 
cavalry  only  are  acting  against  the  enemy ; 3 thirdly,  long  lines 
of  spearmen  on  foot  marching  in  double  file,  and  sometimes 
divided  into  companies;4  and  fourthly,  archers  drawn  up 
together,  but  similarly  divided  into  companies,  each  distin- 
guished by  its  own  uniform.5  We  also  meet  with  a corps  of 
pioneers,  wearing  a uniform  and  armed  only  with  a hatchet,6 
and  with  bodies  of  slingers,  who  are  all  armed  and  clothed 
alike.7  If,  in  the  battles  and  the  sieges  of  this  time,  the  troops 
seem  to  be  to  a great  extent  confused  together,  we  may  account 
for  it,  partly  by  the  inability  of  the  Assyrian  artists  to  represent 
bodies  of  troops  in  perspective,8  partly  by  their  not  aiming  at  an 
actual,  but  rather  at  a typical  representation  of  events,9 *  and 
partly  also  by  their  fondness  for  representing,  not  the  prepara- 
tion for  battle  or  its  first  shock,  but  the  rout  and  flight  of  the 
enemy  and  their  own  hasty  pursuit  of  them. 

The  wars  of  the  Assyrians,  like  those  of  ancient  Borne,  con- 
sisted of  annual  inroads  into  the  territories  of  their  neighbours, 


1 Herod,  i.  103  : IIpwTos  eA^Xitre  Kara 
reAea  rovs  iv  rfj  ’A  air),  /cal  it  peer  os 
8t6Ta£e  XUPIS  ^naarovs  elvai,  rovs  re 
alxnocpopovs  koX  rovs  imreas,  /cat  rovs 
ro£o(p6povs • 7rpb  rov  5e  uva/i'il-  ?jv  navra 
o/aolus  avcnre(f>vpfi4]/a. 

2 Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 1st 
Series,  Pis.  80  and  81. 

3 Ibid.  2nd  Series,  Pis.  37  and  38. 

4 Ibid.  1st  Series,  PI.  69. 

5 Ibid.  2nd  Series,  PI.  20. 

6 Ibid.  1st  Series,  PI.  76. 

7 Ibid.  2nd  Series,  Pis.  20  and  21. 

8 The  Assyrians  in  their  battle-scenes 

never  represent  a long  row  of  men  in 

perspective.  Their  powers  in  this  respect 


are  limited  to  two  men,  or  at  the  utmost 
three.  Where  a longer  row  is  attempted, 
each  is  nearly  on  the  head  of  the  other, 
and  all  are  represented  as  of  the  same 
size. 

9  E.g.  the  Assyrian  representation  of 
a siege  is  a sort  of  history  of  the  siege. 
The  various  parts  of  the  attack  and 
defence,  together  with  the  surrender  and 
the  carrying  away  of  the  captives,  are 
all  represented  in  one  scene.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  each  of  the  different 
corps  who  took  part  in  the  various 
attacks  is  represented  by  a few  men. 
Hence  an  apparent  confusion. 


Chap.  VII. 


MODE  OF  WARFARE. 


463 


repeated  year  after  year,  till  the  enemy  was  exhausted,  sued  for 
peace,  and  admitted  the  suzerainty  of  the  more  powerful  nation. 
The  king  in  person  usually  led  forth  his  army,  in  spring  or  early 
summer,  when  the  mountain  passes  were  opened,  and,  crossing 
his  own  borders,  invaded  some  one  or  other  of  the  adjacent 
countries.  The  monarch  himself  invariably  rode  forth  in  his 
chariot,  arrayed  in  his  regal  robes,  and  with  the  tiara  upon  his 
head ; he  was  accompanied  by  numerous  attendants,  and  gene- 
rally preceded  and  followed  by  the  spearmen  of  the  Royal 
Guard,  and  a detachment  of  horse-archers.  Conspicuous  among 
the  attendants  were  the  charioteer  who  managed  the  reins,  and 
tlie  parasol-bearer,  commonly  a eunuch,  who,  standing  in  the 
chariot  behind  the  monarch,  held  the  emblem  of  sovereignty 
over  his  head.  A bow-bearer,  a quiver-bearer,  and  a mace- 
bearer  were  usually  also  in  attendance,  walking  before  or  behind 
the  chariot  of  the  king,  who,  however,  did  not  often  depend  for 
arms  wholly  upon  them,  but  carried  a bow  in  his  left  hand,  and 
one  or  more  arrows  in  his  right,  while  he  had  a further  store  of 
the  latter  either  in  or  outside  his  chariot.  Two  or  three  led 
horses  were  always  at  hand,  to  furnish  a means  of  escape  in  any 
difficulty.  The  army,  marshalled  in  its  several  corps,  in  part 
preceded  the  royal  cortege,  in  part  followed  at  a little  distance 
behind  it.10  On  entering  the  enemy’s  country,  if  a wooded  tract 
presented  itself,  the  corps  of  pioneers  was  thrown  out  in  advance, 
and  cleared  away  the  obstructions.  When  a river  was  reached 
too  deep  to  be  forded,  the  horses  were  detached  from  the  royal 
and  other  chariots  by  grooms  and  attendants;  the  chariots 
themselves  were  embarked  upon  boats  and  rowed  across  the 
stream ; vdiile  the  horses,  attached  by  ropes  to  a post  near  the 
stern  of  the  boat,  swam  after  it.  The  horses  of  the  cavalry  were 
similarly  drawn  across  by  their  riders.  The  troops,  both  cavalry 
and  infantry,  and  the  attendants,  a very  numerous  body,  swam 
the  stream,  generally  upon  inflated  skins,11  which  they  placed 


10  Compare  the  Persian  practice  (He- 
rod. vii.  40 ; Q.  Curt.  iii.  3). 

11  It  is  very  seldom  that  we  find  a 
swimmer  represented  as  hold  enough  to 


dispense  with  the  support  of  a skin, 
Instances,  however,  do  occur.  (See 
Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis.  16 
and  33.) 


464 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


under  them,  holding  the  neck  in  their  left  hand,  and  sometimes 
increasing  the  inflation  as  they  went  by  applying  the  orifice  at 

the  top  of  the  neck  to  their 
mouths.  We  have  no  di- 
rect evidence  as  to  the 
mode  in  which  the  baggage 
of  an  army,  which  must 
have  been  very  consider- 
able, was  conveyed,  either 
along  the  general  line  of 
route,  or  when  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  cross  a river. 
We  may  conjecture  that 

Soldier  swimming  a river  (Koyunjik).  latter  Case  it  Was 

probably  placed  upon  rafts 
supported  on  inflated  skins,  such  as  those  which  conveyed  stones 
from  distant  quarries  to  be  used  in  the  Assyrian  buildings.1  In 
the  former,  we  may  perhaps  assume  that  the  conveyance  was 
chiefly  by  beasts  of  burthen,  camels  and  asses,  as  the  author  of 
the  Book  of  Judith  imagined.2  Carts  may  have  been  used  to 
some  extent;  since  they  were  certainly  employed  to  convey 
back  to  Assyria  the  spoil  of  the  conquered  nations.3 

It  does  not  appear  whether  the  army  generally  was  provided 
with  tents  or  not.  Possibly  the  bulk  of  the  soldiers  may  have 
bivouacked  in  the  open  field,  unless  when  they  were  able  to 
obtain  shelter  in  towns  or  villages  taken  from  the  enemy. 
Tents,  however,  were  certainly  provided  for  the  monarch  and 
his  suite.  Like  the  tents  of  the  Romans,  these  appear  to  have 
been  commonly  pitched  within  a fortified  enclosure,  which  was 
of  an  oval  shape.4 * * *  They  were  disposed  in  rows,  and  were  all 


1 See  the  representation,  p.  338. 

2 Judith  ii.  17  : “ And  he  took  camels 

and  asses  for  their  carriages,  a very  great 

number ; and  sheep,  and  oxen,  and  goats, 

without  number,  for  their  provision.” 

I have  given  elsewhere  my  reasons 

( Herodotus , vol.  i.  p.  245,  note  8,  1st  edi- 

tion) for  regarding  the  Book  of  Judith 
as  a post- Alexandrine  work,  and  there- 
fore as  no  real  authority  on  Assyrian 


history  or  customs.  But  the  writer  had 
a good  acquaintance  with  Oriental  man- 
ners in  general,  which  are  and  always 
have  been  remarkably  wide-spread  and 
permanent.  He  may,  therefore,  fairly  be 
used  to  fill  out  a sketch  of  Assyria. 

3 See  pp.  234  and  243. 

4 Mr.  Layard  was  at  first  inclined  to 
regard  these  enclosures  as  “ castles,”  or 
“walled  cities”  ( Monuments , 1st  Series, 


Chap.  VII. 


CAMPS  AND  TENTS. 


465 


Royal  tent  (Koyunjik). 


nearly  similar  in  construction  and  form,  the  royal  tent  being 
perhaps  distinguished  from  the  others  by  a certain  amount  of 
ornamentation,  and  by  a slight 
superiority  of  size.  The  ma- 
terial used  for  the  covering  was 
probably  felt.5  All  the  tents 
were  made  open  to  the  sky  in 
the  centre,  but  closed  in  at 
either  extremity  with  a curious 
semicircular  top.  The  two  tops 
were  of  unequal  size.  Inter- 
nally, either  both  of  them,  or  1 
at  any  rate  the  larger  ones, 
were  supported  by  a central 
pole,  which  threw  out  branches 
in  different  directions  resemb- 
ling the  branches  of  a tree  or 
the  spokes  of  a parasol.  Some- 
times the  walls  of  the  tent  had 
likewise  the  support  of  poles, 
which  were  kept  in  place  by 
ropes  passed  obliquely  from 
the  top  of  each  to  the  ground 
in  front  of  them,  and  then 
firmly  secured  by  pegs.  Each 
tent  had  a door,  square-headed, 
which  was  placed  at  the  side, 
near  the  end  which  had  the 
smaller  covering.  The  furni- 
ture of  tents  consisted  of  tables, 
couches,  footstools,  and  domestic 


Ordinary  tent  (Koyunjik). 


Interior  of  tent  (Koyunjik). 

utensils  of  various  kinds. 


Pis.  63  and  77  ; 2nd  Series,  Pis.  24,  36, 
and  50).  But  in  his  latest  work  ( Nineveh 
and  Babylon , p.  230)  he  takes  the  view 
adopted  in  the  text,  that  they  are  really 
“ fortified  camps  and  not  cities.”  No 
one  will  hesitate  to  admit  this  conclu- 
sion who  compares  with  the  enclosures 
the  actual  plan  of  a walled  city  (Badaca) 
in  PI.  49  of  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 

VOL.  I. 


2nd  Series. 

5 Pelt  was  used  by  the  Scythians  for 
their  tent-coverings  (Herod,  iv.  73, 75) ; as 
it  is  by  the  Calmucks  at  the  present  day. 
It  is  one  of  the  simplest  of  manufactures, 
and  would  readily  take  the  rounded  form, 
which  is  so  remarkable  in  the  roofs  of  the 
Assyrian  tents. 

2 H 


466 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Within  the  fortified  enclosure,  hut  outside  the  tents,  were  the 
chariot  and  horses  of  the  monarch,  an  altar  where  sacrifice 
could  he  made,  and  a number  of  animals  suitable  for  food,  as 
oxen,  sheep,  and  goats.6 

It  appears  that  occasionally  the  advance  of  the  troops  was 
along  a road.7  Ordinarily,  however,  they  found  no  such  con- 
venience, but  had  to  press  forward  through  woods  and  over 
mountains  as  they  best  could.  Whatever  the  obstructions,  the 
chariot  of  the  monarch  was  in  some  way  or  other  conveyed 
across  them,  though  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  he  could  have 
always  remained,  as  he  is  represented,  seated  in  it.  Probably 


King  walking  in  a mountainous  country — chariot  following  supported  by  men 
(from  an  Obelisk  in  the  British  Museum). 

he  occasionally  dismounted  and  made  use  of  one  of  the  led 
horses,  by  which  he  was  always  accompanied,  while  sometimes 
he  even  condescended  to  proceed  on  foot.8  The  use  of  palan- 
quins or  litters  seems  not  to  have  been  known  to  the  Assyrians, 
though  it  was  undoubtedly  very  ancient  in  Asia ; but  the  king 


6 These  are  often  represented  in  the 
bas-reliefs.  (See  Layard,  Monuments , 
2nd  Series,  Pis.  24  and  36.  Compare 
the  passage  from  Judith  above  quoted, 
p.  464,  note  2.) 

7 A road  seems  to  be  intended  in  the 
bas-relief  of  which  Mr.  Layard  has  given 
a representation  in  his  Monuments  of. 

Nineveh , 1st  Series,  PI.  81.  According 
to  the  rendering  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson, 


Tiglath-Pileser  I.  calls  himself  “ the 
opener  of  the  roads  of  the  countries.” 
(Inscription,  p.  30,  § ix.) 

8  The  probabilities  of  the  case  alone 
would  justify  these  conclusions,  which 
are  further  supported  by  the  Inscriptions 
( Inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I p.  30, 
§ viii. ; Journal  of  Asiatic  Society , vol. 
xix.  pp.  139, 140,  &c.),  and  by  at  least  one 
bas-relief  (see  the  above  representation). 


Chap.  VII. 


BATTLES. 


467 


was  sometimes  carried  on  men’s  shoulders,  seated  on  his  throne, 
in  the  way  that  we  see  the  enthroned  gods  borne  in  many  of  the 
sculptures.9 

The  first  object  in  entering  a country  was  to  fight,  if  possible, 
a pitched  battle  with  the  inhabitants.  The  Assyrians  were 
always  confident  of  victory  in  such  an  encounter,  being  better 
armed,  better  disciplined,  and  perhaps  of  stronger  frames  than 
any  of  their  neighbours.10  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  how 
their  armies  were  drawn  up,  or  how  the  troops  were  handled  in 
an  engagement ; but  it  would  seem  that  in  most  cases,  after  a 
longer  or  a shorter  resistance,  the  enemy  broke  and  fled,  some- 
times throwing  away  his  arms,  at  other  times  fighting  as  he 
retired,  always  vigorously  pursued  both  by  horse  and  foot,  and 
sometimes  driven  headlong  into  a river.1  Quarter  was  not 
very  often  given  in  a battle.  The  barbarous  practice  of  re- 
warding those  who  carried  back  to  camp  the  heads  of  foemen 
prevailed ; and  this  led  to  the  massacre  in  many  cases  even 
of  the  wounded,  the  disarmed,  and  the  unresisting,  though 
occasionally  quarter  was  given,  more  especially  to  generals  and 
other  leading  personages  whom  it  was  of  imjDortance  to  take 
alive.  Even  while  the  engagement  continued,  it  would  seem 
that  soldiers  might  quit  the  ranks,  decapitate  a fallen  foe, 
and  carry  off  his  head  to  the  rear,  without  incurring  any 
reproof ; 2 and  it  is  certain  that,  so  soon  as  the  engagement 
was  over,  the  whole  army  turned  to  beheading  the  fallen,  using 
for  this  purpose  the  short  sword,  which  almost  every  warrior 
carried  at  his  left  side.  A few,  unable  to  obtain  heads,  were 
forced  to  be  content  with  gathering  the  spoils  of  the  slain  and 
of  the  fled,  especially  their  arms,  such  as  quivers,  bows,  helmets, 
and  the  like ; while  their  more  fortunate  comrades,  proceeding 


9 Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  65. 
Mr.  Fox  Talbot  supposes  palanquins  to 
be  mentioned  more  than  once  in  an 
inscription  of  Sennacherib  ( Journal  of 
Asiatic  Society , vol.  xix.  pp.  152,  153, 

173,  &c.)  ; but  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  does  not 


allow  this  translation. 

10  See  p.  239. 

1 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 
PI.  46. 

2 See  particularly  Layard’s  Monuments , 
1st  Series,  PI.  70. 


2 h 2 


468 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY". 


Chap.  VII. 


to  an  appointed  spot  in  the  rear,3  exhibited  the  tokens  of  their 
valour,  or  of  their  good  luck,  to  the  royal  scribes,  who  took  an 
exact  account  of  the  amount  of  the  spoil,  and  of  the  number  of 
the  enemy  killed. 

When  the  enemy  could  no  longer  resist  in  the  open  field,  he 
usually  fled  to  his  strongholds.  Almost  all  the  nations  with 
whom  the  Assyrians  waged  their  wars  possessed  fortified  cities, 
or  castles,  which  seem  to  have  been  places  constructed  with  a 
good  deal  of  skill,  and  possessed  of  no  inconsiderable  strength. 


Fortified  place,  belonging  to  an  enemy  of  the  Assyrians  (Nimrud). 


According  to  the  representations  of  the  sculptures,  they  were  all 
nearly  similar  in  character,  the  defences  consisting  of  high 
battlemented  walls,  pierced  with  loopholes  or  windows  towards 
their  upper  part,  and  flanked  at  intervals  along  their  whole 
course  by  towers.  Often  they  possessed  two  or  more  enceintes, 
which  in  the  bas-reliefs  are  represented  one  above  the  other  ; 
and  in  these  cases  the  outermost  circuit  was  sometimes  a mere 
plain  continuous  wall,  as  in  the  above  woodcut.  They  were 
entered  by  large  gateways,  most  commonly  arched,  and  closed 


3 Sometimes  a tent  was  set  apart  for  the  purpose,  and  the  heads  were  piled  in 
one  corner  of  it.  (Layard,  Monuments,  2nd  Series,  PI.  45.) 


Chap.  VII. 


SIEGES. 


469 


Gateway  of  castle  (Koyunjik). 


by  two  huge  gates  or  doors,  which  completely  filled  up  the 
aperture.  Occasionally,  however,  the  gateways  were  square- 
headed, as  in  the  subjoined  illustra- 
tion, where  there  occurs,  moreover, 
a very  curious  ornamentation  of  the 
battlements.4 

These  fortified  places  the  Assyrians 
attacked  in  three  principal  ways. 

Sometimes  they  endeavoured  to  take 
them  by  escalade,  advancing  for  this 
purpose  a number  of  long  ladders 
against  different  parts  of  the  walls, 
thus  distracting  the  enemy’s  attention 
and  seeking  to  find  a wTeak  point. 

Up  the  ladders  proceeded  companies  of 
spearmen  and  archers  in  combination, 
the  spearmen  invariably  taking  the  lead,  since  their  large  shields 
afforded  them  a protection,  which  archers  advancing  in  file  up  a 
ladder  could  not  have.  Meanwhile  from  below  a constant  dis- 
charge was  kept  up  by  bowmen  and  slingers,  the  former  of  whom 
were  generally  protected  by  the  gerrhon,  or  high  wicker  shield, 
held  in  front  of  them  by  a comrade.  The  besieged  endeavoured 
to  dislodge  and  break  the  ladders,  which  are  often  represented 
in  fragments;5  or,  failing  in  this  attempt,  sought  by  hurling 
down  large  stones,  and  by  discharges  from  their  bows  and  slings, 
to  precipitate  and  destroy  their  assailants.  If  finally  they  were 
unable  by  these  means  to  keep  the  Assyrians  from  reaching  the 
topmost  round  of  the  ladders,  they  had  recourse  to  their  spears, 
and  man  to  man,  spear  to  spear,  and  shield  to  shield,  they  still 
struggled  to  defend  themselves.  The  Assyrians  always  repre- 
sent the  sieges  vThich  they  conduct  as  terminating  successfully ; 
but  we  may  be  tolerably  sure  that  in  many  instances  the  invader 


4 Mr.  Layard  regards  this  ornamenta- 
tion as  produced  by  a suspension  from 
the  battlements  of  the  shields  of  the 
garrison,  and  suggests  that  it  illustrates 

the  passage  in  Ezekiel  with  respect  to 
Tyre : “ The  men  of  Arvad  with  thine 
army  were  upon  thy  walls  round  about, 


and  the  Gammadims  were  in  thy  towers  ; 
they  hanged  their  shields  upon  thy  walls 
round  about.”  ( Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  388.) 

5 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI. 

21. 


4;o 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


was  beaten  back,  and  forced  to  relinquish  his  prey,  or  to  try 
fresh  methods  of  obtaining  it. 

If  the  escalade  failed,  or  if  it  was  thought  unadvisable  to 
attempt  it,  the  plan  most  commonly  adopted  was  to  try  the 
effect  of  the  battering-ram.  The  Assyrian  armies  were  abun- 


Battering-rams. 


dantly  supplied  with  these  engines,  of  which  we  see  as  many  as 
seven  engaged  in  a single  siege.6  They  were  variously  designed 
and  arranged.  Some  had  a head  shaped  like  the  point  of  a 
spear;7  others,  one  more  resembling  the  end  of  a blunderbuss.8 
All  of  them  were  covered  with  a framework,  which  was  of  ozier, 
wood,  felt  or  skins,  for  the  better  protection  of  those  who  worked 
the  implement ; but  some  appear  to  have  been  stationary,  having 


G Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI.  21.  7 As  Nos.  I.,  II.,  and  III.,  above. 

8 As  No.  IV.,  above. 


Chap.  YII. 


BATTERING-RAMS. 


47 1 


tlieir  framework  resting  on  the  ground  itself,9  while  others  were 
moveable,  being  provided  with  wheels,  which  in  the  early  times 
were  six,10  but  in  the  later  times  four  only.  Again,  sometimes, 
combined  with  the  ram  and  its  framework  was  a moveable  tower, 
containing  soldiers,  who  at  once  fought  the  enemy  on  a level, 
and  protected  the  engine  from  their  attacks.  Fire  was  the 
weapon  usually  turned  against  the  ram,  torches,  burning  tow,  or 
other  inflammable  substances  being  cast  from  the  walls  upon  its 
framework,  which,  wherever  it  was  of  ozier  or  of  wood,  could  be 
easily  set  alight  and  consumed.  To  prevent  this  result,  the 
workers  of  the  ram  were  sometimes  provided  with  a supply  of 
water,  which  they  could  direct  through  leathern  or  metal  pipes 
against  the  combustibles.1  At  other  times  they  sought  to  pro- 
tect themselves  by  suspending  from  a pole  in  front  of  their 
engine  a curtain  of  cloth,  leather,  or  some  other  non-inflammable 
substance.2 

Another  mode  of  meeting  the  attacks  of  the  battering-ram 
was  by  catching  the  point  with  a chain  suspended  by  its  two 
ends  from  the  walls,  and  then,  when  the  ram  was  worked, 
diverting  the  stroke,  by  drawing  the  head  upwards.3  To  oppose 
this  device,  the  besiegers  provided  some  of  their  number  with 
strong  metal  hooks,  and  stationed  them  below  the  ram,  where 
they  watched  for  the  descent  of  the  chain.  As  soon  as  ever  it 
caught  the  head  of  the  ram,  they  inserted  their  hooks  into  its 
links,  and  then  hanging  upon  it  with  their  whole  weight,  pre- 
vented its  interference  with  the  stroke. 

Battering-rams  were  frequently  used  against  the  walls  from 
the  natural  ground  at  their  foot.  Sometimes,  however,  the 
besiegers  raised  vast  mounds  against  the  ramparts,  and  advanced 


9 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  PI.  19. 

10  Ibid.  PI.  17.  1 Ibid.  PI.  19. 

2 In  the  bas-relief  represented  by  Mr. 
Layard  in  his  2nd  Series  of  Monuments , 
PI.  21,  where  an  enormous  number  of 
torches  are  seen  in  the  air,  every  bat- 
tering-ram is  thus  protected.  A man, 
sheltered  under  the  framework  of  the 
ram,  holds  the  pole  which  supports  the 
curtain.  (See  the  ram,  No.  II.,  in  the 


woodcut  on  the  preceding  page.)  May 
not  the  Tr^oKaAv/uL/naTa  of  the  Platceans 
have  been  curtains  of  this  description? 
They  were  made  of  “ skins  and  raw 
hides”  (Thucyd.  ii.  75). 

3 Instead  of  chains,  the  Greeks  used 
nooses  (/3pox°0>  ma<Ie  of  rope  probably, 
for  this  purpose.  (See  Thucyd.  ii.  76, 
where  aveuXwu  seems  to  mean  “ drew 
upwards,”  and  compare  Livy,  xxxvi.  23, 
and  Dio  Cassius,  1080,  11.) 


472 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  Vn. 


their  engines  up  these,  thus  bringing  them  on  a level  with  the 
upper  and  weaker  portions  of  the  defences.  Of  this  nature  pro- 
bably were  the  mounds  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  employed  by 
the  Babylonians 4 and  Egyptians,5  as  well  as  the  Assyrians,6  in 
their  sieges  of  cities.  The  intention  was  not  so  much  to  pile  up  the 

mounds  till  they  were  on  a 
leyel  with  the  top  of  the 
walls  as  to  work  the  batter- 
ing-ram with  greater  advan- 
tage from  them.  A similar 
use  wras  made  of  mounds  by 
the  Peloponnesian  Greeks, 
who  nearly  succeeded  in 
taking  Platasa  in  this  way.7 
The  mounds  were  not  always 
composed  entirely  of  earth ; 
the  upper  portion  was  often 
made  of  several  layers  of 
stone  or  brick,  arranged  in 
regular  order,  so  as  to  form 
a sort  of  paved  road,  up 
which  the  rams  might  be 
dragged  with  no  great  diffi- 
culty. Trees,  too,  were 
sometimes  cut  down  and 
built  into  the  mound.8 

Besides  battering-rams, 
the  Assyrians  appear  to 
have  been  acquainted  with 
an  engine  resembling  the 
catapult,  or  rather  the  balista 9 of  the  Romans.  This  engine, 


4 Jer.  vi.  6,  xxxii.  24,  xxxiii.  4,  &c. 

5 Ezek.  xvii.  17. 

6 2 Kings  xix.  32  ; Is.  xxxvii.  33.  The 
Jews  themselves  were  acquainted,  with 
this  mode  of  siege  as  early  as  the  time 
of  David.  (2  Sam.  xx.  15.) 

7 Thucyd.  ii.  76. 

8 See  the  above  woodcut,  and  com- 

pare Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 2nd 


Series,  PI.  18.  So  Thucydides  speaks 
of  the  Peloponnesian  mound  as  com- 
posed of  earth,  stones,  and  wood.  (’E cp6- 
povv  5e  v\7]V  is  avrb  Kal  \l6ovs  koX 
y'fjj/,  Thucyd.  ii.  75.) 

9  The  term  “ catapult  ” was  properly 
applied  to  the  engine  which  threw  darts ; 
that  which  threw  stones  was  called 
| balista. 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  BALISTA— MINING. 


473 


which  was  of  great  height,  and  threw  stones  of  a large  size,  was 
protected,  like  the  ram,  by  a framework,  apparently  of  wood, 
covered  with  canvas,  felt,  or  hides.  The  stones  thrown  from 
the  engine  were  of  irregular  shape,  and  it  was  able  to  discharge 
several  at  the  same  time.  The  besiegers  worked  it  from  a mound 
or  inclined  plane,  which  enabled  them  to  send  their  missiles  to 
the  top  of  the  ramparts.10  It  had  to  be  brought  very  close  to 
the  walls  in  order  to  be  effective — a position  which  gave  the 
besieged  an  opportunity  of  assailing  it  by  fire.  Perhaps  it  was 
this  liability  which  caused  the  infrequent  use  of  the  engine  in 
question,  which  is  rare  upon  the  earlier,  and  absent  from  the 


later,  sculptures. 

The  third  mode  of  attack  employed  by  the  Assyrians  in 
their  sieges  of  fortified  places  was  the  mine.  While  the 
engines  were  in  full  play,  and  the  troops  drawn  up  around 
the.  place  assailed  the  de- 


fenders of  the  walls  with 
their  slings  and  bows,  war- 
riors singly,  or  in  twos  and 
threes,  advanced  stealthily 
to  the  foot  of  the  ramparts, 
and  either  with  their  swords 
and  the  points  of  their 
spears,  or  with  implements 
better  suited  for  the  pur- 
pose, such  as  crowbars  and 
pickaxes,  attacked  the  foun- 
dations of  the  walls,  endea- 
vouring to  remove  the  stones  one  by  one,  and  so  to  force  an 
entrance.  While  thus  employed,  the  assailant  commonly  either 
held  his  shield  above  him  as  a protection,  or  was  guarded  by 
the  shield  of  a comrade;11  or,  finally,  if  he  carried  the  curved 
gerrhon,  leant  it  against  the  wall,  and  then  placed  himself  under 
its  shelter.12  Sometimes,  however,  he  dispensed  with  the  pro- 


(J 


Crowbar. 


10  According  to  Diodorus,  balistcB 
were  chiefly  used  to  break  down  the 
battlements  which  crowned  the  walls 
and  the  towers.  (Diod.  Sic.  xvii.  42, 


45  ; xx.  48,  88.) 

11  Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 1st 
Series,  PI.  66. 

12  See  the  woodcut,  supra,  p.  446. 


474 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


tection  of  a shield  altogether,  and,  trusting  to  his  helmet  and 
coat  ot  mail,  which  covered  him  at  all  vital  points,  pursued  his 
labour  without  paying  any  attention  to  the  weapons  aimed  at 
him  by  the  enemy.13 

Occasionally  the  efforts  of  the  besiegers  were  directed  against 
the  gates,  which  they  endeavoured  to  break 
open  with  axes,  or  to  set  on  fire  by  an  appli- 
cation of  the  torch.  From  this  latter  circum- 
stance we  may  gather  that  the  gates  were 
ordinarily  of  wood,  not,  like  those  of  Babylon 14 
and  Veii,15  of  brass.  In  the  hot  climate  of 
Southern  Asia  wood  becomes  so  dry  by  ex- 
posure to  the  sun  that  the  most  solid  doors 
may  readily  be  ignited  and  consumed.1 

When  at  last  the  city  or  castle  was  by  some 
of  these  means  reduced,  and  the  garrison  con- 
sented to  surrender  itself,  the  work  of  de- 
molition, already  begun,  was  completed. 
Generally  the  place  was  set  on  fire;  some- 
times workmen  provided  with  pickaxes  and 
other  tools  mounted  upon  the  ramparts  and 
towers,  hurled  down  the  battlements,  broke 
breaches  in  the  walls,  or  even  levelled  the 
whole  building.  Vengeance  was  further  taken 
by  the  destruction  of  the  valuable  trees  in  the 
vicinity,  more  especially  the  highly  prized  date-palms,  which 
were  cut  with  hatchets  half  through  their  stems  at  the  distance 
of  about  two  feet  from  the  ground,  and  then  pulled  or  pushed 
down.  Other  trees  were  either  treated  similarly,  or  denuded 
of  their  branches.2  Occasionally  the  destruction  was  of  a less 
wanton  and  vengeful  character.  Timber-trees  were  cut  down 
for  transport  to  Assyria,  where  they  were  used  in  the  construc- 


Implement  used  in  the 
destruction  of  cities 
(Khorsabad). 


13  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series, 

PI.  19. 

14  Herod,  i.  179;  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  8,  § 7. 

15  Plutarch,  Vit.  Camill.  12. 

1 In  the  Affghan  war  one  of  the  gates 
of  the  city  of  Candahar  was  ignited 


from  the  outside  by  the  Affghanees,  and 
was  entirely  consumed  in  less  than  an 
hour. 

2 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 2nd 
Series,  PI.  40. 


Chap.  VII. 


TREATMENT  OF  CAPTURED  CITIES. 


475 


Soldiers  destroying  date-palms  (Koyunjik). 


tion  of  the  royal  palaces;3  and  fruit-trees  were  occasionally 
taken  up  by  the  roots, 
removed  carefully,  and 
planted  in  the  gardens 
and  orchards  of  the  con- 
querors.4 Meanwhile 
there  was  a general  plun- 
dering of  the  captured 
place.  The  temples  were 
entered,  and  the  images 
of  the  gods,  together  with 
the  sacred  vessels,  which 
were  often  of  gold  and 
silver,5  were  seized  and 
carried  off  in  triumph.6 
This  w7as  not  mere  cu- 
pidity. It  was  regarded 
as  of  the  utmost  importance  to  show  that  the  gods  of  the 
Assyrians  were  superior  to  those  of  other  countries,  who  were 
powerless  to  protect  either  their  votaries 
or  even  themselves  from  the  irresistible 
might  of  the  servants  of  Asshur.  The 
ordinary  practice  was  to  convey  the  images 
of  the  foreign  gods  from  the  temples  of 
the  captured  places  to  Assyria,  and  there 
to  offer  them  at  the  shrines  of  the  prin- 
cipal Assyrian  deities.7  Hence  the  special 
force  of  the  proud  question — “ Where  are 
the  gods  of  Hamath  and  of  Arpad  ? Where 

are  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim,  Hena,  and  Soldier  carrying  off  spoil 

It  o » » vin  jv  i from  a temple  (Khorsabad). 

vah?  8 Where  are  they  but  carried  cap-  * v ; 

tive  to  Assyria,  prisoners  and  slaves  in  the  temples  of  those 
deities  whose  power  they  ventured  to  resist  ? 


3 Fox  Talbot,  Assyrian  Texts , pp.  8, 

17.  &c. 

4 So  at  least  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson 

understands  a passage  in  the  Tiglath- 

Pileser  Inscription,  col.  vii.  11.  17-27, 

pp.  58-60. 


5 Inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  p.  28. 

6 Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI. 
65  ; 2nd  Series,  PI.  30,  &c. 

7 Inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  p. 
40;  Assyrian  Texts , p.  17. 

8 2 Kings  xviii.  34. 


4/6 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


The  houses  of  the  city  were  also  commonly  plundered,  and 
everything  of  value  in  them  was  carried  off.  Long  files  of 
men,  each  bearing  some  article  of  furniture  out  of  the  gate  of  a 
captured  town,  are  frequent  upon  the  bas-reliefs,  where  we  like- 
wise often  observe  in  the  train  of  a returning  army  carts  laden 
with  household  stuff'  of  every  kind,  alternating  with  long  strings 
of  captives.  All  the  spoil  seems  to  have  been  first  brought  bv 
the  individual  plunderers  to  one  place,  where  it  was  carefully 

sorted  and  counted  in  the  presence 
and  under  the  superintendence  of 
royal  scribes,  who  took  an  exact 
inventory  of  the  whole  before  it  was 
carried  away  by  its  captors.  Scales 
were  used  to  determine  the  weight 
of  articles  made  of  the  precious 
metals,9  which  might  otherwise  have 
been  subjected  to  clipping.  We 
may  conclude  from  these  practices 
that  a certain  proportion  of  the  value 
of  all  private  spoil  was  either  due 

Scribes  taking  account  of  the  spoil  to  the  ro7al  treasury,  or  required 
(Khorsabad).  to  be  paid  to  the  gods  in  acknow- 

ledgement of  their  aid  and  protection.  Besides  the  private 
spoil,  there  was  a portion  which  was  from  the  first  set  apart 
exclusively  for  the  monarch.  This  consisted  especially  of  the 
public  treasure  of  the  captured  city,  the  gold  and  silver,  whether 
in  bullion,  plate,  or  ornaments,  from  the  palace  of  its  prince, 
and  the  idols,  and  probably  the  other  valuables,  from  the 
temples. 

The  inhabitants  of  a captured  place  were  usually  treated  with 
more  or  less  of  severity.  Those  regarded  as  most  responsible 
for  the  resistance  or  the  rebellion  were  seized ; generally  their 
hands  were  manacled  either  before  them  or  behind  their  backs, 
while  sometimes  fetters  were  attached  to  their  feet,1  and  even 

9 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  British  Museum. 

Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  377,  and  compare  a 1 See  Mr.  Layard's  Nineveh  and  its 
representation  on  the  broken  black  Remains,  voL  ii.  p.  376. 
obelisk  of  Asshur-izir-pal.  now  in  the 


Chap.  VII.  MODES  OF  EXECUTION.  477 

rings  passed  through  their  lips,2  and  in  this  abject  guise  they 
were  brought  into  the  presence  of  the  Assyrian  king.  Seated 
on  his  throne  in  his  fortified  camp  without  the  place,  and 
surrounded  by  his  attendants,  he  received  them  one  by  one, 
and  instantly  pronounced  their  doom.  On  some  he  proudly 
placed  his  foot,3  some  he  pardoned,  a few  he  ordered  for  execu- 
tion, many  he  sentenced  to  be  torn  from  their  homes  and 
carried  into  slavery. 

Various  modes  of  execution  seem  to  have  been  employed  in 
the  case  of  condemned  captives.  One  of  them  was  impalement. 
This  has  always  been,  and  still  remains,  a common  mode  of 
punishment  in  the  East;  but  the  manner  of  impaling  which 
the  Assyrians  adopted  was  peculiar.  They  pointed  a stake  at 
one  end,  and,  having  fixed  the  other  end  firmly  into  the  ground, 
placed  their  criminal  with  the  pit  of  his  stomach  upon  the 
point,  and  made  it  enter  his  body  just  below  the  breastbone.4 
This  method  of  impaling  must  have  destroyed  life  tolerably  soon, 
and  have  thus  been  a far  less  cruel 
punishment  than  the  crucifixion  of  the 
Romans.  We  do  not  observe  it  very 
often  in  the  Assyrian  sculptures,  nor 
do  we  ever  see  it  applied  to  more  than 
a few  individuals.5  It  was  probably 
reserved  for  those  who  were  considered 
the  worst  criminals.6 

Another  very  common  mode  of 
executing  captives  was  by  beating  in 
their  skulls  with  a mace.  In  this  case 
the  victim  commonly  knelt  ; his  two  Mace-bearer,  with  attendant, 
hands  were  placed  before  him  upon  a P~r  (Koyunjik). 

block  or  cushion ; behind  him  stood  two  executioners,  one  of 


2 See  p.  243,  where  a representation 
of  captives  thus  treated  is  given. 

3 For  a representation  of  this  practice 

see  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series, 

PI.  82.  The  Persian  monarchs  treated 

captives  in  the  same  way,  as  we  see  by 
the  rock  sculpture  at  Behistun.  The 
practice  has  always  prevailed  in  the 


East.  See  Josh.  x.  24 ; Ps.  viii.  6 ; cx.  1 ; 
Lament,  iii.  34,  &c. 

4 For  a representation,  see  p.  242. 

5 One  king,  the  great  Asshur-izir-pal, 
seems  to  have  employed  impalement  on 
a large  scale.  (See  his  long  Inscription, 
British  Museum  Series , Pis.  17  to  26.) 

6 Assyrian  Texts , p.  28. 


478 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


whom  held  him  by  a cord  round  his  neck,  while  the  other, 
seizing  his  back  hair  in  one  hand,  struck  him  a furious  blow 
upon  the  head  with  a mace  which  he  held  in  the  other.7  It 
must  have  been  rarely,  if  ever,  that  a second  blow  was  needed. 

Decapitation  was  less  frequently  practised.  The  expression 
indeed,  “ I cut  off  their  heads,”  is  common  in  the  Inscriptions ; 8 
but  in  most  instances  it  evidently  refers  to  the  practice,  already 
noticed,9  of  collecting  the  heads  of  those  who  had  fallen  in 

battle.  Still  there  are  in- 
stances, both  in  the  Inscrip- 
tions1 and  in  the  sculptures,2 
of  what  appears  to  have  been 
a formal  execution  of  cap- 
tives by  beheading.  In  these 
cases  the  criminal,  it  would 
seem,  stood  upright,  or  bend- 
ing a little  forwards,  and,  the 
executioner,  taking  him  by  a 
lock  of  hair  with  his  left 
hand,  struck  his  head  from 
his  shoulders  with  a short 
sword,  which  he  held  in  his 
right. 

It  is  uncertain  whether  a punishment  even  more  barbarous 
than  these  was  not  occasionally  resorted  to.  In  two  or  three 
bas-reliefs  executioners  are  represented  in  the  act  of  flaying 
prisoners  with  a knife.  The  bodies  are  extended  upon  the 
ground  or  against  a wall,  to  which  they  are  fastened  by  means 
of  four  pegs  attached  by  strings  or  thongs  to  the  two  wrists  and 
the  two  ankles.  The  executioner  leans  over  the  victim,  and 
with  his  knife  detaches  the  skin  from  the  flesh.3  One  would 
trust  that  this  operation  was  not  performed  until  life  was 


7 Another  mode  of  executing  with  | 1 Assyrian  Texts,  1.  s.  c. 

the  mace  is  represented  in  Mr.  Layard’s  2 See  particularly  the  slab  in  the 

Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  458.  British  Museum,  entitled  “ Execution  of 

8 See  the  Inscription  of  Tiglath-Pi-  the  King  of  Susiana. 

les?r  I.  pp.  24  and  50;  Assyrian  Texts,  3 Fora  representation seeMr. Layard’s 

pp.  11,  30,  &c.  9 Supra,  p.  467.  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  457. 


Swordsman  decapitating  a prisoner 
(Koyunjik). 


Chap.  VII. 


TREATMENT  OF  CAPTIVES. 


479 


extinct.  We  know  that  it  was  the  practice  of  the  Persians,4 
and  even  of  the  barbarous  Scythians,5  to  flay  the  corpses,  and 
not  the  living  forms,  of  criminals  and  of  enemies ; we  may 
hope,  therefore,  that  the  Assyrians  removed  the  skin  from  the 
dead,  to  use  it  as  a trophy  or  as  a warning,6  and  did  not  inflict 
so  cruel  a torture  on  the  living. 

Sometimes  the  punishment  awarded  to  a prisoner  was  mutila- 
tion instead  of  death.  Cutting  off  the  ears  close  to  the  head, 
blinding  the  eyes  with  burning-irons,  cutting  off  the  nose,  and 
plucking  out  the  tongue  by  the  roots,  have  been  in  all  ages 
favourite  Oriental  punishments.7  We  have  distinct  evidence 
that  some  at  least  of  these  cruelties  were  practised  by  the 
Assyrians.  Asshur-izir-pal  tells  us  in  his  great  Inscription  that 
he  often  cut  off  the  noses  and  the  ears  of  prisoners;  while 
a slab  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  the  son  of  Esarhaddon,  shows  a 
captive  in  the  hands  of  the  torturers,  one  of  whom  holds  his 
head  firm  and  fast,  while  another  thrusts  his  hand  into  his 
mouth  for  the  purpose  of  tearing  out  the  tongue.8 

The  captives  carried  away  by  the  conquerors  consisted  of 
men,  women,  and  children.  The  men  were  formed  into  bands, 
under  the  conduct  of  officers,  who  urged  them  forward  on  their 
way  by  blows,  with  small  regard  to  their  sufferings.  Commonly 
they  were  conveyed  to  the  capital,  where  they  were  employed 
by  the  monarchs  in  the  lower  or  higher  departments  of  labour, 
according  to  their  capacities.  The  skilled  workmen  were  in 
request  to  assist  in  the  ornamentation  of  shrines  and  palaces, 
while  the  great  mass  of  the  unskilled  were  made  use  of  to 
quarry  and  drag  stone,  to  raise  mounds,  make  bricks,  and  the 


4 Herod,  v.  25 : ’ZKra.fxvgv  [iacriXevs 
Kag^xxrgs,  acpd^as  cur  ed e i pe  tt array 

avOpooTrri'triv.  And  again,  a little 
further  on : r ov  caroKreLuas  cureSetpe, 
“ flayed  after  he  had  slain.” 

5 Herod,  iv.  64 : IToAAol  Se  dvZpuv 
exOptoV  Tas  8e£(as  X*Pas  v 6 K P & v 
idvruv  airodeipavres,  avrolm  live 
Ka\ viTTpas  rS>v  (paperpeuv  iroiedvrai. 

6 The  Scythians  used  the  skins  of 

their  enemies  as  trophies.  When  Cam- 

byses  had  Sisamnes  flayed,  it  was  to 
cover  with  his-  skin  the  seat  of  justice, 


on  which  his  son  had  succeeded  him, 
and  so  to  deter  the  son  from  imitating 
the  corruption  of  his  father. 

7 See  Herod,  iii.  69,  154;  vii.  18; 
Xen.  Anab.  i.  9,  § 13 ; Amm.  Marc, 
xxvii.  12;  Procop.  De  Bell.  Pers.  i.  11  ; 
Jerem.  xxxix.  7,  &c. ; and  compare  Bris- 
son,  De  Begn.  Pers.  ii.  pp.  334,  335. 

8 The  whole  slab  is  engraved  by  Mr. 
Layard  in  his  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 
PI.  47.  A portion  of  it  is  also  given  in 
his  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  458. 


480 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


like.9  Sometimes,  instead  of  being  thus  employed  in  task- 
work in  or  near  the  capital,  the  captives  were  simply  settled  in 
new  regions,  where  it  was  thought  that  they  would  maintain 
the  Assyrian  power  against  native  malcontents.10  Thus  Esar- 
haddon  planted  Babylonians,  Susanchites,  Dehavites,  Elamites, 
and  others  in  Samaria,11  while  Sargon  settled  his  Samaritan 
captives  in  Gauzanitis  and  in  “ the  cities  of  the  Medes.”  12 
The  women  and  children  carried  off  by  the  conquerors  were 
treated  with  more  tenderness  than  the  men.  Sometimes  on  foot, 


but  often  mounted  on  mules,13  or  seated  in  carts  drawn  by  bullocks 
or  asses,14  they  followed  in  the  train  of  their  new  masters,  not 
always  perhaps  unwilling  to  exchange  the  monotony  of  domestic 
life  at  home  for  the  excitement  of  a new  and  unknown  condition 
in  a fresh  country.  We  seldom  see  them  exhibiting  any  signs 
of  grief.  The  women  and  children  are  together,  and  the 
mothers  lavish  on  their  little  ones  the  usual  caresses  and  kind 
offices,  taking  them  in  their  laps,  giving  them  the  breast, 
carrying  them  upon  their  shoulders,  or  else  leading  them  by 
the  hand.  At  intervals  they  were  allowed  to  stop  and  rest; 
and  it  was  not  even  the  practice  to  deprive  them  of  such  portion 
of  their  household  stuff  as  they  might  have  contrived  to  secure 


9 See  Tiglath-Pileser  Inscription , col. 
vi.  1.  85 ; Assyrian  Texts , pp.  2,  7,  &c. 

10  Ibid.  p.  4. 


11  Ezra,  iv.  2 and  9. 

12  2 Kings,  xviii.  11.  13  See  p.  233. 

H See  pp.  234  and  243. 


Chap.  YII. 


SPOILS  OF  WAR. 


481 


before  quitting  their  homes.  This  they  commonly  bore  in  a 
bag  or  sack  which  was  either  held  in  the  hand  or  thrown  oyer 
one  shoulder.  When  they  reached  Assyria,  it  would  seem  that 
they  were  commonly  assigned  as  wives  to  the  soldiers  of  the 
Assyrian  army.15 

Together  with  their  captives  the  Assyrians  carried  off  vast 
quantities  of  the  domesticated  animals,  such  as  oxen,  sheep, 
goats,  horses,  asses,  camels,  and  mules.  The  numbers  men- 
tioned in  the  Inscriptions  are  sometimes  almost  incredible. 
Sennacherib,  for  instance,  says  that  in  one  foray  he  bore  off 
from  the  tribes  on  the  Euphrates  “7200  horses  and  mares, 
5230  camels,  11,000  mules,  120,000  oxen,  and  800,000  sheep  ” ! 1 
Other  kings  omit  particulars,  but  speak  of  the  captured  animals 
which  they  led  away  as  being  “ too  numerous  to  be  counted,” 
or  “ countless  as  the  stars  of  heaven.” 2 The  Assyrian  sculptors 
are  limited  by  the  nature  of  their  art  to  comparatively  small 
numbers,  but  they  show  us  horses,  camels,  and  mules,  in  the 
train  of  a returning  army,3  together  with  groups  of  the  other 
animals,4  indicative  of  the  vast  flocks  and  herds  continually 
mentioned  in  the  Inscriptions. 

Occasionally  the  monarchs  w7ere  not  content  with  bringing 
home  domesticated  animals  only,  but  took  the  trouble  to 
transport  from  distant  regions  into  Assyria  wild  beasts  of 
various  kinds.  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  informs  us  in  general  terms 
that,  besides  carrying  off  the  droves  of  the  horses,  cattle,  and 
asses  that  he  obtained  from  the  subjugated  countries,  he  “ took 
away  and  drove  off  the  herds  of  the  wild  goats  and  the  ibexes, 
the  wild  sheep  and  the  wild  cattle ; ” 5 and  another  monarch 
mentions  that  in  one  expedition  he  carried  off  from  the  middle 
Euphrates  a drove  of  forty  wild  cattle,  and  also  a flock  of 
twenty  ostriches.6  The  object  seems  to  have  been  to  stock 
Assyria  with  a variety  and  an  abundance  of  animals  of  chace. 


15  Assyrian  Texts,  p.  19  and  note. 

1 See  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol.  i. 
p.  493,  note  1. 

2 Assyrian  Texts,  p.  11  ; Tiglath-Pi- 
leser Inscription,  p.  44,  &c. 

3 Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis. 

VOL.  I. 


61,  74,  75;  2nd  Series,  Pis.  33,  34,  &c. 

4 For  representations  of  such  groups, 
see  pp.  351,  352. 

5 Inscription,  p.  58. 

6 Assyrian  Texts,  p.  25. 

2 i 


482 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


The  foes  of  the  Assyrians  would  sometimes,  when  hard 
pressed,  desert  the  dry  land,  and  betake  themselves  to  the 
marshes,  or  cross  the  sea  to  islands  where  they  trusted  that 
they  might  be  secure  from  attack.  Not  unfrequently  they 
obtained  their  object  by  such  a retreat,  for  the  Assyrians  were 
not  a maritime  people.  Sometimes,  however,  they  were  pursued. 
The  Assyrians  would  penetrate  into  the  marshes  by  means  of 
reed  boats,  probably  not  very  different  from  the  terradas  at 
present  in  use  among  the  Arabs  of  the  Mesopotamian  marsh 
districts.7  Such  boats  are  represented  upon  the  bas-reliefs  as 
capable  of  holding  from  three  to  five  armed  men.8  On  these 
the  Assyrian  foot-soldiers  would  embark,  taking  with  them  a 
single  boatman  to  each  boat,  who  propelled  the  vessel  much  as 
a Venetian  gondolier  propels  his  gondola,  i.e.,  with  a single 
long  oar  or  paddle,  which  he  pushed  from  him  standing  at  the 
stern.  They  would  then  in  these  boats  attack  the  vessels  of 
the  enemy,  which  are  always  represented  as  smaller  than  theirs, 
run  them  down  or  board  them,  kill  their  crews  or  force  them 
into  the  water,  or  perhaps  allow  them  to  surrender.  Meanwhile 
the  Assyrian  cavalry  was  stationed  round  the  marsh  among  the 
tall  reeds  which  thickly  clothed  its  edge,  ready  to  seize  or  slay 
such  of  the  fugitives  as  might  escape  from  the  foot. 

When  the  refuge  sought  was  an  island,  if  it  lay  near  the 
shore,  the  Assyrians  would  sometimes  employ  the  natives  of  the 
adjacent  coast  to  transport  beams  of  wood  and  other  materials 
by  means  of  their  boats,  in  order  to  form  a sort  of  bridge  or 
mole  reaching  from  the  mainland  to  the  isle  whereto  their  foes 
had  fled.9  Such  a design  was  entertained,  or  at  least  professed, 
by  Xerxes  after  the  destruction  of  his  fleet  in  the  battle  of 
Salamis,10  and  it  was  successfully  executed  by  Alexander  the 
Great,  who  took  in  this  way  the  new  or  island  Tyre.11  From  a 


7  For  a description  of  these  terradas , 

see  Mr.  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Babylon , 

p.  552,  and  compare  Loftus,  Chaldoea  and 

Susiana , p.  92.  The  larger  terradas  are 

of  teak,  but  the  smaller  “consist  of  a 
very  narrow  framework  of  rushes 
covered  with  bitumen.”  These  last  seem 
to  be  the  exact  counterpart  of  the  boats 
represented  in  the  sculptures.  (See  Mr. 


Layard’s  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  Pis. 
25,  27,  and  28.) 

8 Layard,  ibid.  1.  s.  c. 

9 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  i. 
Pis.  31  to  35. 

10  Herod,  viii.  p.  97 ; Ctes.  Exc.  Pers. 
§ 26 ; Strab.  ix.  1,  § 13. 

11  Arrian,  Exp.  Alex.  ii.  1. 


Chap.  VII. 


NAVAL  EXPEDITIONS. 


483 


series  of  reliefs  discovered  at  Khorsabad  we  may  conclude  that 
more  than  two  hundred  years  before  the  earlier  of  these  two 
occasions,  the  Assyrians  had  conceived  the  idea  and  even  suc- 
ceeded in  carrying  out  the  plan,12  of  reducing  islands  near  the 
coast  by  moles. 

Unlike  the  Chaldseans,  whose  “ cry  was  in  their  ships,”  13  the 
Assyrians  seem  very  rarely  to  have  adventured  themselves 
upon  the  deep.  If  their  enemies  fled  to  islands  which  could 
not  be  reached  by  moles,  or  to  lands  across  the  sea,  in  almost 
every  instance  they  escaped.  Such  escapes  are  represented 
upon  the  sculptures,14  where  we  see  the  Assyrians  taking  a 
maritime  town  at  one  end,  while  at  the  other  the  natives  are 
embarking  their  women  and  children,  and  putting  to  sea,  without 
any  pursuit  being  made  after  them.  In  none  of  the  bas-reliefs 
do  we  observe  any  seagoing  vessels  with  Assyrians  on  board; 
and  history  tells  us  of  but  two  or  three  expeditions  by  sea  in 
which  they  took  part.  One  of  these  was  an  expedition  by 
Sennacherib  against  the  coasts  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  to  which  his 
Chaldaean  enemies  had  fled.  On  this  occasion  he  brought 
shipwrights  from  Phoenicia  to  Assyria,  and  made  them  build 
him  ships  there,  which  were  then  launched  upon  the  Tigris, 
and  conveyed  down  to  the  sea.  With  a fleet  thus  constructed, 
and  probably  manned,  by  Phoenicians,  Sennacherib  crossed  to 
the  opposite  coast,  defeated  the  refugees,  and,  embarking  his 
prisoners  on  board,  returned  in  triumph  to  the  mainland.15 
Another  expedition  was  that  of  Shalmaneser  IV.  against  the 
island  Tyre.16  Assyrians  are  said  to  have  been  personally 
engaged  in  it ; but  here  again  we  are  told  that  they  embarked 
in  ships  furnished  to  them  by  the  Phoenicians,  and  manned 
chiefly  by  Phoenician  sailors. 


12  Unless  they  had  been  successful, 
they  would  not,  we  may  be  sure,  have 
made  the  construction  of  the  mole  the 
subject  of  a set  of  bas-reliefs. 

13  Isaiah  xliii.  14. 

14  See  the  description  in  Mr.  Layard's 
Monuments , 1st  Series,  p.  16,  and  com- 
pare Nineceh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii. 
p.  384. 

15  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , vol. 
xix.  p.  154. 


16  Menander  ap.  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud. 
ix.  14,  § 2.  It  has  been  thought  that 
Sargon  attacked  Cyprus.  (Oppert,  In- 
scriptions des  Sargonides , p.  19.)  But 
his  monument  found  at  Idalium  does 
not  prove  that  he  carried  his  arms  there. 
By  the  inscription  it  appears  that  the 
tablet  was  carved  at  Babylon , and  con- 
veyed thence  to  Cyprus  by  Cyprian  en- 
voys. 

I 


2 i 2 


4§4 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


When  a country  was  regarded  as  subjugated,  the  Assyrian 
monarch  commonly  marked  the  establishment  of  his  sovereignty 
by  erecting  a memorial  in  some  conspicuous  or  important  situa- 
tion within  the  territory  conquered,  as  an  enduring  sign  of  his 
having  taken  possession.  These  memorials  were  either  engraved 
on  the  natural  rock  or  on  solid  blocks  of  stone  cut  into  the  form 
of  a broad  low  stele.  They  contained  a figure  of  the  king, 
usually  enclosed  in  an  arched  frame,  and  an  inscription  of 
greater  or  less  length,  setting  forth  his  name,  his  titles,  and 
some  of  his  exploits.  More  than  thirty  such  memorials  are 
mentioned  in  the  extant  Inscriptions,  and  the  researches  of 
recent  times  have  recovered  some  ten  or  twelve  of  them.1.  They 
uniformly  represent  the  king  in  his  sacerdotal  robes,  with  the 
sacred  collar  round  his  neck,  and  the  emblems  of  the  gods 
above  his  head,  raising  the  right  hand  in  the  act  of  adoration, 
as  if  he  were  giving  thanks  to  Asshur  and  his  guardian  deities 
on  account  of  his  successes. 


It  is  now  time  to  pass  from  the  military  customs  of  the 
Assyrians  to  a consideration  of  their  habits  and  usages  in  time 
of  peace,  so  far  as  they  are  made  known  to  us  either  by  his- 
torical records  or  by  the  pictorial  evidence  of  the  bas-reliefs. 
And  here  it  may  be  convenient  to  treat  separately  of  the  public 
life  of  the  king  and  court,  and  of  the  private  life  of  the 
people. 

In  Assyria,  as  in  most  Oriental  countries,  the  key- stone  of 
the  social  arch,  the  central  point  of  the  system,  round  which  all 
else  revolved,  and  on  which  all  else  depended,  was  the  monarch. 
“ L’etat,  c’est  moi  ” might  have  been  said  with  more  truth  by 
an  Assyrian  prince  than  even  by  the  “ Grand  Monarque  ” whose 
dictum  it  is  reported  to  have  been.  Alike  in  the  historical 


1 To  this  class  belong  the  rock  sculp- 
tures, five  or  six  in  number,  at  the  Nahr- 
el-Kelb.  There  is  another  of  the  same 
character  at  Bavian,  a third  at  Egil, 
on  the  main  Tigris  stream  above  Diar- 
bekr,  and  there  are  two  others  at  the 
sources  of  the  eastern  Tigris,  or  river  of 
Supnat.  Two  block  memorials  have 


been  found  at  Kurkh,  20  miles  below 
Diarbekr,  recording  the  exploits  of 
Asshur-izir-pal,  and  his  son,  Shalma- 
neser II.  They  were  discovered  by  Mr. 
John  Taylor  in  1862,  and  are  now  in 
the  British  Museum.  The  Egil  and 
Supnat  tablets  were  also  discovered  by 
Mr.  Taylor. 


Chap.  YII. 


ORDINARY  COSTUME  OF  THE  KING. 


485 


notices,  and  in  the  sculptures,  we  have  the  person  of  the  king 
presented  to  us  with  consistent  prominence,  and  it  is  con- 
sequently with  him  that  we  most  naturally  commence  the 
present  portion  of  our  inquiry. 

The  ordinary  dress  of  the  monarch  in  time  of  peace  was  a 
long  flowing  robe,  reaching  to  the  ankles,  elaborately  patterned 
and  fringed,  over  which  was  worn,  first,  a broad  belt,  and  then 
a species  of  open  mantle,  or  chasuble,  very  curiously  contrived. 
This  consisted  mainly  of  two  large  flaps,  both  of  which  were 
commonly  rounded,  though  sometimes  one  of  them  was  square 
at  bottom.2  These  fell  over  the  robe  in  front  and  behind, 
leaving  the  sides  open,  and  so  exposing  the  under  dress  to 
view.  The  two  flaps  must  have  been  sewn  together  at  the 


places  marked  with  the  dotted  lines  a b and  c d ,3  the  space 
from  a to  c being  left  open,  and  the  mantle  passed  by  that 
means  over  the  head.  At  d g there  was  commonly  a short 
sleeve  ( h ),  which  covered  the  upper  part  of  the  left  arm,  but 
the  right  arm  was  left  free,  the  mantle  falling  on  either  side  of 
it.  Sometimes,  besides  the  flaps,  the  mantle  seems  to  have  had 
two  pointed  wings  attached  to  the  shoulders  (a  f b and  c eh  in 
the  woodcut),  which  were  made  to  fall  over  in  front.  Occa- 
sionally there  was  worn  above  the  chasuble  a broad  diagonal 


2 Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI. 
34.  The  squared  flap  is  always  that 
which  is  worn  behind. 

3 The  account  and  the  representation 
of  this  complicated  garment  are  taken 


mainly  from  the  work  of  M.  Botta  ( Monu- 
ment de  Ninive,  vol.  v.  p.  84).  But  the 
author  has  slightly  modified  both  M. 
Botta's  theory  and  his  illustration. 


436  the  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  VII. 

belt,  ornamented  with  a deep  fringe,  and  sometimes  there 
depended  at  the  back  of  the  dress  a species  of  large  hood.4 

The  special  royal  head-dress  was 
a tall  mitre  or  tiara,  which  at  first 
took  the  shape  of  the  head,  but 
rose  above  it  to  a certain  height  in 
a gracefully  curved  line,  when  it 
was  covered  in  with  a top,  flat,  like 
that  of  a hat,  but  having  a projection 
towards  the  centre,  which  rose  up 
into  a sort  of  apex  or  peak,  not 
however  pointed,  but  either  rounded 
or  squared  off.  The  tiara  was  gene- 
rally ornamented  with  a succession 
of  bands,  between  which  were  com- 
monly patterns  more  or  less  elabo- 
rate. Ordinarily  the  lowest  band, 
instead  of  running  parallel  with 
the  others,  rose  with  a gentle  curve 
towards  the  front,  allowing  room 
for  a large  rosette  over  the  fore- 
head, and  for  other  similar  ornaments.  If  we  may  trust  the 
representations  on  the  enamelled  bricks,  supported  as  they  are 
to  some  extent  by  the  tinted  reliefs,  we  may  say  that  the 
tiara  was  of  three  colours,  red,  yellow,  and  white.5  The  red 
and  white  alternated  in  broad  bands  ; the  ornaments  upon  them 
were  yellow,  being  probably  either  embroidered  on  the  material 
of  the  head-dress  in  threads  of  gold,  or  composed  of  thin  gold 
plates  which  may  have  been  sewn  on.  The  general  material 
of  the  tiara  is  likely  to  have  been  cloth  or  felt ; it  can  scarcely 
have  been  metal,  if  the  deep  crimson  tint  of  the  bricks  and  the 
reliefs  is  true. 

In  the  early  sculptures  the  tiara  is  more  depressed  than  in 
the  later,  and  it  is  also  less  richly  ornamented.  It  has  seldom 
more  than  two  bands,  viz.  a narrow  one  at  top,  and  at  bottom  a 


4 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  opp.  p.  7. 

0 See  Botta’s  Monument , vol.  i.  PI.  12,  and  vol.  ii.  PI.  155. 


Chap.  VII. 


ORDINARY  COSTUME  OF  THE  KINO. 


487 


broader  curved  one,  rising  towards  the  front.  To  this  last  are 
attached  two  long  strings  or  lappets,  which  fall  behind  the 
monarch’s  back  to  a level  with  his  elbow. 


Tiara  of  the  later  period 
(Koyunjik). 


Tiara  of  the  earlier  period 
(Nimrud). 


Another  head-dress  which  the  monarch  sometimes  wore  was  a 
sort  of  band  or  fillet.  This  was  either  elevated  in  front  and 
ornamented  with  a single  rosette, 
like  the  lowest  band  of  the  tiara, 
or  else  of  uniform  width  and 
patterned  along  its  whole  course.6 
In  either  case  there  depended 
from  it,  on  each  side  of  the  back 
hair,  a long  riband  or  streamer, 
fringed  at  the  end,  and  some- 
times ornamented  with  a delicate 
pattern. 

The  monarch’s  feet  were  protected  by  sandals  or  shoes.  I11 
the  early  sculptures  sandals  only  appear  in  use,  shoes  being 
unknown1  (as  it  would  seem)  until  the  time  of  Sennacherib. 


Fillet  worn  by  the  king  (Nimrud). 


6 See  the  woodcut  on  p.  507. 

1 Shoes  were  not  absolutely  unknown 
to  the  Assyrians,  even  in  the  earliest 
period,  since  they  are  represented  on 
the  feet  of  foreign  tribute-bearers  as 


early  as  the  Black-Obelisk  king.  Boots 
are  also  represented  in  this  monarch’s 
sculptures.  But  Assyrians  wear  neither 
till  the  reign  of  Sennacherib. 


488 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Royal  sandal  (^time  of  Sargon). 


The  sandals  worn  were  of  two  kinds.  The  simplest  sort  had  a 
very  thin  sole  and  a small  cap  for  the  heel,  made  apparently  of 

a number  of  strips  of  leather2  sewn 
together.  It  was  held  in  place  by  a 
loop  over  the  great  toe,  attached  to 
the  fore  part  of  the  sole,  and  by  a 
string  which  was  laced  backwards  and 
forwards  across  the  instep,  and  then  tied  in  a bow. 

The  other  kind  of  sandal  had  a very  different  sort  of  sole ; it 
was  of  considerable  thickness,  especially  at  the  heel,  from  which 
it  gradually  tapered  to  the  toe.  Attached  to  this  was  an  upper 

leather  which  protected  the  heel  and 
the  whole  of  the  side  of  the  foot,  but 
left  the  toes  and  the  instep  exposed. 
A loop  fastened  to  the  sole 3 received 
the  great  toe,  and  at  the  point  where 
the  loop  was  inserted  two  straps  were  also  made  fast,  which 
were  then  carried  on  either  side  the  great  toe  to  the  top 
of  the  foot,  where  they  crossed  each  other,  and,  passing  twice 
through  rings  attached  to  the  edge  of  the  upper  leather, 
were  finally  fastened,  probably  by  a buckle,  at  the  top  of  the 
instep. 

The  shoe  worn  by  the  later  kings  was  of  a coarse  and  clumsy 
make,  very  much  rounded  at  the  toe,  patterned 
with  rosettes,  crescents,  and  the  like,  and 
(apparently)  laced  in  front.  In  this  respect  it 
differed  from  the  shoe  of  the  queen,  which 
will  be  represented  presently,4  and  also  from 
the  shoes  worn  by  the  tribute-bearers. 

The  accessory  portions  of  the  royal  costume  were  chiefly 
belts,  necklaces,  armlets,  bracelets,  and  ear-rings.  Besides  the 


Royal  sandal  (time  of 
Asshur-izir-  pal ) . 


Royal  shoe  (time  of 
Sennacherib). 


2  At  Khorsabad  these  strips  were 

sometimes  coloured  alternately  red  and 
blue.  More  often  the  entire  sandal  had 

a reddish  tint.  M.  Botta  observes  that 
a sandal  shaped  exactly  like  this  is  worn 
to  the  present  day  in  the  Mount  Sinjar, 
and  in  other  parts  of  Mesopotamia. 
( Monument , vol.  v.  p.  85.) 


3 This  loop  has  been  regarded  as  a 
mere  twist  of  the  strap  round  the  great 
toe ; but  I find  it  sometimes  clearly  re- 
presented as  springing  from  the  sole. 
Thus  only  would  it  add  much  to  the 
hold  of  the  foot  on  the  sandal. 

4 Infra,  p.  493. 


Chap.  VII. 


ORDINARY  COSTUME  OF  THE  KINO. 


489 


belt  round  the  waist,  in  which  two  or  three  highly  ornamented 
daggers  were  frequently  thrust,  and  the  broad  fringed  cross-belt, 
of  which  mention  was  made  above,5  the  Assyrian  monarch  wore 
a narrow  cross-belt  passing  across  his  right  shoulder,  from  which 
his  sword  hung  at  his  left  side.  This  belt  was  sometimes  patterned 
with  rosettes.  It  was  worn  over  the  front  flap  of  the  chasuble, 
but  under  the  back  flap,  and  was  crossed  at  right  angles  by  the 
broad  fringed  belt,  which  was  passed  over  the  right  arm  and 
head  so  as  to  fall  across  the  left  shoulder. 

The  royal  necklaces  were  of  two  kinds.  Some  consisted 
merely  of  one  or  more  strings 
of  long  lozenge-shaped  beads 
slightly  chased  and  connected 
by  small  links,  ribbed  perpen- 
dicularly. The  other  kind  was 
a band  or  collar,  perhaps  of  gold,  on  which  were  hung  a number 
of  sacred  emblems : as  the  crescent  or  emblem  of  the  Moon- 
God,  Sin ; the  four-rayed  disk,  the  em- 
blem of  the  Sun-God,  Shamas ; the  six- 
rayed  or  eight-rayed  disk,  the  emblem 
of  Gula,  the  Sun-Goddess;  the  horned 
cap,  perhaps  the  emblem  of  the  king’s 
guardian  genius ; and  the  double  or  triple 
bolt,  which  was  the  emblem  of  Vul,  the  Royal  colIor  (Nimmd)‘ 
god  of  the  atmosphere.  This  sacred  collar  was  a part  of  the 
king’s  civil  and  not  merely  of  his  sacerdotal  dress ; as  appears 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  sometimes  worn  when  the  king  was 
merely  receiving  prisoners.6 

The  monarch  wore  a variety  of  armlets.  The  most  common 
was  a plain  bar  of  a single  twist,  the  ends  of  which  slightly 
overlapped  each  other.  A more  elegant  kind  was  similar  to 
this,  except  that  the  bar  terminated  in  animal  heads  carefully 
wrought,  among  which  the  heads  of  rams,  horses,  and  ducks  were 
the  most  common.  A third  sort  has  the  appearance  of  being 
composed  of  a number  of  long  strings  or  wires,  confined  at  inter- 


5 See  p.  485. 


6 See  Mr.  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  82. 


490 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


vals  of  less  than  an  inch  by  cross  bands  at  right  angles  to  the 
wires.  This  sort  was  carried  round  the  arm  twice,  and  even  then 

its  ends  overlapped  considerably. 
It  is  probable  that  all  the  arm- 
lets  were  of  metal,  and  that  the 
appearance  of  the  last  was  given 
to  it  by  the  workman  in  imitation 
of  an  earlier  and  ruder  armlet  of 
worsted  or  leather. 

The  bracelets  of  the  king,  like 
his  armlets,  were  sometimes  mere 
bars  of  metal,  quite  plain  and 
without  ornament.  More  often, 
however,  they  were  ribbed  and 
adorned  with  a large  rosette  at 
the  centre.  Sometimes,  instead  of  one  simple  rosette,  we  see 
three  double  rosettes,  between  which  project  small  points, 


Royal  armlets  (Khorsabad). 


Royal  bracelets 
(Khorsabad  and  Koyunjik). 


Royal  bracelet 
(Khorsabad). 


shaped  like  the  head  of  a spear.  Occasionally  these  double 
rosettes  appear  to  be  set  on  the  surface  of  a broad  bar,  which 
is  chased  so  as  to  represent  brickwork.  In  no  case  can  we  see 
how  the  bracelets  were  fastened  ; perhaps  they  were  elastic  and 
were  slipped  over  the  hand.7 

Specimens  of  royal  ear-rings  have  been  already  given  in  an 
earlier  chapter  of  this  volume.8  The  most  ordinary  form  in  the 
more  ancient  times  was  a long  drop,  which  was  sometimes  deli- 


7 Roman  bracelets  were  sometimes 

fastened  with  catches.  (See  Dictionary 
of  Antiquities , p.  136,  2nd  ed.)  But 


more  often  they  were  left  open,  like  the 
Assyrian  armlets,  and  merely  clung  to 
the  arm.  8 P.  371. 


Chap.  VII. 


WAR  DRESS  OF  THE  KING. 


491 


cately  chased.9  Another  common  kind  was  an  incomplete  Maltese 
cross,  one  arm  of  the  four  being  left  out  because  it  would  have 
interfered  with  the  ear.  In  later  times 
there  was  a good  deal  of  variety  in 
the  details;  but  the  drop  and  the 
cross  were  always  favourite  features. 

When  the  monarch  went  out  to 
the  hunt  or  to  the  battle,  he  laid  aside 

ill-  Royal  ear-rings  (Nimrud). 

such  ornaments  as  encumbered  him, 

reserving  however  his  ear-rings,  bracelets,  and  armlets,  and  then, 
stripping  off  his  upper  dress  or  chasuble,  appeared  in  the  under 
robe  which  has  been  already  described.10  This  robe  was  con- 
fined at  the  waist  by  a broad  cinc- 
ture or  girdle,  outside  of  which 
was  worn  a narrowish  belt  wherein 
daggers  were  often  thrust.  In  early 
times  this  cincture  seems  to  have 
been  fastened  by  a riband  with 
long  streaming  ends,  which  are 
very  conspicuous  in  the  Nimrud 
sculptures.  At  the  same  period 
the  monarch  often  wore,  when  he 
hunted  or  went  out  to  battle,  a 
garment  which  might  have  been 
called  an  apron,  if  it  had  not  been 
worn  behind  instead  of  in  front. 

This  was  generally  patterned  and 
fringed  very  richly,  besides  being 
ornamented  with  one  or  more 
long  pendant  tassels. 

The  sacerdotal  dress  of  the  king,  or  that  which  he  commonly 
wore  when  engaged  in  the  rites  of  his  religion,  differed  consider- 
ably from  his  ordinary  costume.  His  inner  garment,  indeed, 
seems  to  have  been  the  usual  long  gown  with  a fringe  descend- 


Early  king  in  his  war-costume 
(Nimrud;. 


9 See  the  woodcut  nearest  the  top  of 
p.  371. 

10  Supra,  p.  485.  This  change  of  dress 
is  almost  universal  in  the  earliest  and 


in  the  latest  sculptures.  In  the  inter- 
mediate period,  however,  the  time  of 
Sargon  and  Sennacherib,  the  monarch 
goes  out  to  war  in  his  chasuble. 


A92  the  SECOND  MONAECHY.  Chap.  VII. 

ing  to  the  ankles  ; but  this  was  almost  entirely  concealed  under 
an  ample  outer  robe,  which  was  closely  wrapped  round  the  form 
and  kept  in  place  by  a girdle.  A deep  fringe,  arranged  in  two 
rows,  one  above  the  other,  and  carried  round  the  robe  in  curved 
sweeps  at  an  angle  with  the  horizontal  line,  is  the  most  striking 
feature  of  this  dress,  which  is  also  remarkable  for  the  manner  in 
which  it  confines  and  conceals  the  left  arm,  while  the  right  is 
left  free  and  exposed  to  view.  A representation  of  a king  thus 
apparelled  will  be  found  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  work,1  taken 
from  a statue  now  in  the  British  Museum.  It  is  peculiar  in 
having  the  head  uncovered,  and  in  the  form  of  the  implement 
borne  in  the  right  hand.  It  is  also  incomplete  as  a representa- 
tion, from  the  fact  that  all  the  front  of  the  breast  is  occupied  by 
an  inscription.  Other  examples 2 show  that  the  tiara  was  com- 
monly worn  as  a part  of  the  sacerdotal  costume  ; that  the  sacred 
collar 3 adorned  the  breast,  necklaces  the  neck,  and  bracelets  the 
two  arms;  while  in  the  belt,  which  was  generally  to  some  extent 
knotted,  were  borne  two  or  three  daggers.  The  mace  seems  to 
have  been  a necessary  appendage  to  the  costume,  and  was 
always  grasped  just  below  its  head  by  the  left  hand. 

We  have  but  one  representation  of  an  Assyrian  queen. 
Despite  the  well-known  stories  of  Semiramis  and  her  manifold 
exploits,  it  would  seem  that  the  Assyrians  secluded  their  females 
with  as  rigid  and  watchful  a jealousy  as  modern  Turks  or 
Persians.  The  care  taken  with  respect  to  the  direction  of  the 
passages  in  the  royal  hareem  has  been  noticed  already.4  It 
is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  thus  indicated,  and 
with  the  general  tenor  of  Oriental  habits,  that  neither  in 
inscriptions 5 nor  in  sculptured  representations  do  the  Assy- 
rians allow  their  women  to  make  more  than  a most  rare  and 


1 See  p.  340. 

2 Particularly  the  slab  engraved  by 
Mr.  Layard  in  his  Monuments , 1st  Series, 
PI.  25,  with  which  compare  the  figure  in 
an  arched  frame  represented  in  the  same 
author’s  Nineveh  and  Babylon , opp.  p. 
351. 

3 For  a representation  of  the  sacred 

collar,  see  above,  p.  489. 


4 See  p.  297. 

5 Mention  of  an  Assyrian  woman 
has  been  found  as  yet  in  only  two  in- 
scriptions, one  being  that  on  the  dupli- 
cate statues  of  Nebo  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  and  the  other  being  a tablet- 
inscription  belonging  to  the  reign  of  the 
last  known  king. 


Chap.  VII. 


COSTUME  OF  THE  QUEEN. 


493 


occasional  appearance.  Fortunately  for  us,  their  jealousy  was 
sometimes  relaxed  to  a certain  extent;  and  in  one  scene, 
recovered  from  the  debris  of  an  Assyrian  palace,6  we  are  enabled 
to  contemplate  at  once  the  domestic  life  of  the  monarch  and  the 
attire  and  even  the  features  of  his  consort. 


King,  queen,  and  attendants  (Koyunjik). 


It  appears  that  in  the  private  apartments,  while  the  king,  like 
the  Eomans  and  the  modern  Orientals,  reclined  upon  a couch, 
leaning  his  weight  partly  upon  his  left  elbow,7  and  having  Iris 
right  arm  free  and  disposable,  her  majesty  the  queen  sat  in  a 
chair  of  state  by  the  couch’s  side,  near  its  foot  and  facing  her 
lord.  Two  eunuchs  provided  with  large  fans  were  in  attendance 
upon  the  monarch,  and  the  same  number  waited  upon  the 
queen,  standing  behind  her  chair.  Her  majesty,  whose  hair  was 
arranged  nearly  like  that  of  her  royal  consort,  wore  upon  her 
head  a band  or  fillet  having  something  of  the  appearance  of  a 
crown  of  towers,  such  as  encircles  the  brow  of  Gybele  on  Greek 
coins  and  statues.  Her  dress  was  a long-sleeved  gown  reach- 
ing from  the  neck  to  the  feet,  flounced  and  trimmed  at 


6 The  scene  is  from  the  palace  of 
Esar-haddon’s  son  (Asshur-bani-pal)  at 
Koyunjik.  It  is  now  in  the  National 
Collection. 

7 Horat.  Od.  I.  xxviii.  8 — “ Et  cubito 
remanete  presso .”  See  also  Sat.  I.  iv.  39. 
The  Roman  fashion  has  been  thus  de- 
scribed (and  the  description  would  evi- 


dently suit  the  Assyrians  just  as  well) 
— “They  lay  with  the  upper  part  of  the 
body  resting  on  the  left  arm,  the  head 
a little  raised,  the  back  supported  by 
cushions,  and  the  limbs  stretched  out  at 
full  length,  or  a little  bent.”  (Lipsius, 
Antiq.  Led.  iii.) 


494  THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  VII. 

the  bottom  in  an  elaborate  way,  and  elsewhere  patterned  with 
rosettes,  over  which  she  wore  a fringed  tunic  or  frock  descending 

half-way  between  the  knees  and 
the  feet.  In  addition  to  these 
two  garments,  she  wore  upon 
her  back  and  shoulders  a light 
cloak  or  cape,  patterned  (like 
the  rest  of  her  dress)  with  ro- 
settes and  edged  with  a deep 
fringe.  Her  feet  were  encased 
in  shoes  of  a clumsy  make,  also 
patterned.  Her  ornaments,  be- 
sides the  crown  upon  her  head, 
were  ear-rings,  a necklace,  and 
bracelets.  Her  chair  was  cush- 
ioned, and  adorned  with  a dra- 
pery which  hung  over  the  back. 
Her  feet  rested  on  a handsome 
footstool,  also  cushioned. 

Enlarged  figure  of  the  queen  (Koyunjik).  Qn  ^ g]ab  from  ^ 

description  is  taken  the  royal  pair  seem  to  be  refreshing  them- 
selves with  wine.  Each  supports  on  the  thumb  and  fingers  of 
the  right  hand  a saucer  or  shallow  drinking-cup,  probably  of 
some  precious  metal,  which  they  raise  to  their  lips  simul- 
taneously, as  if  they  were  pledging  one  another.  The  scene  of 
the  entertainment  is  the  palace-garden ; for  trees  grow  on  either 
side  of  the  main  figures,  while  over  their  heads  a vine  hangs 
its  festoons  and  its  rich  clusters.  By  the  side  of  the  royal 
couch,  and  in  front  of  the  queen,  is  a table  covered  with  a 
table-cloth,  on  which  are  a small  box  or  casket,  a species  of 
shallow  bowl  which  may  have  held  incense  or  perfume  of  some 
kind,  and  a third  article  frequently  seen  in  close  proximity  to 
the  king,  but  of  whose  use  it  is  impossible  to  form  a conjecture. 
At  the  couch’s  head  stands  another  curious  article,  a sort  of 
tall  vase  surmounted  by  a sugarloaf,  which  probably  represents 
an  altar.  The  king  bears  in  his  left  hand  the  lotus  or  sacred 
flower,  while  the  queen  holds  in  hers  what  looks  like  a modern 


Chap.  VII. 


THE  ROYAL  ATTENDANTS. 


495 


fan.  All  the  lower  part  of  the  monarch’s  person  is  concealed 
beneath  a coverlet,  which  is  plain,  except  that  it  has  tassels  at 
the  corners  and  an  embroidered  border. 

The  officers  in  close  attendance  upon  the  monarch  varied 
according  to  his  employment.  In  war  he  was  accompanied  by 
his  charioteer,  his  shield-bearer  or  shield-bearers,  his  groom,  his 


quiver-bearer,  his  mace-bearer,  and  sometimes  by  his  parasol- 
bearer.  In  peace  the  parasol-bearer  is  always  represented  as  in 
attendance,  except  in  hunting  expeditions,  or  where  he  is  re- 


496 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII- 


placed  by  a fan-bearer.  The  parasol,  which  exactly  resembled 
that  still  in  use  throughout  the  East,  was  reserved  exclusively 
for  the  monarch.  It  had  a tall  and  thick  pole,  which  the  bearer 
grasped  with  both  his  hands,  and  in  the  early  times  a somewhat 
small  circular  top.  Under  the  later  kings  the  size  of  the  head 
was  considerably  enlarged,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a curtain  or 
flap  was  attached,  which,  falling  from  the  edge  of  the  parasol, 
more  effectually  protected  the  monarch  from  the  sun’s  rays. 
The  head  of  the  parasol  was  fringed  with  tassels,  and  the  upper 
extremity  of  the  pole  commonly  terminated  in  a flower  or 
other  ornament.  In  the  later  time  both  the  head  and  the 
curtain  which  depended  from  it  were  richly  patterned.  If  we 
may  trust  the  remains  of  colour  upon  the  Khorsabad  sculptures, 
the  tints  preferred  were  red  and  white,  which  alternated  in  bands 
upon  the  parasol  as  upon  the  royal  tiara. 

There  was  nothing  very  remarkable  in  the  dress  or  quality  of 
the  royal  attendants.  Except  the  groom,  the  charioteer,  and  the 
shield-bearers,  they  were  in  the  early  times  almost  invariably 
eunuchs;  but  the  later  kings  seem  to  have  preferred  eunuchs 
for  the  offices  of  parasol-bearer  and  fan-bearer  only.  The  dress 
of  the  eunuchs  is  most  commonly  a long  fringed  gown,  reaching 
from  the  neck  to  the  feet,  with  very  short  sleeves,  and  a broad 
belt  or  girdle  confining  the  gown  at  the  waist.  Sometimes  they 
have  a cross-belt  also ; and  occasionally  both  this  and  the  girdle 
round  the  waist  are  richly  fringed.1  The  eunuchs  commonly 
wear  ear-rings,  and  sometimes  armlets  and  bracelets ; in  a few 
instances  they  have  their  necks  adorned  with  necklaces,  and 
their  long  dresses  elaborately  patterned.2  Their  heads  are 
either  bare,3  or  at  most  encircled  with  a fillet. 

A peculiar  physiognomy  is  assigned  to  this  class  of  persons — 
the  forehead  low,  the  nose  small  and  rounded,  the  lips  full,  the 
chin  large  and  double,  the  cheeks  bloated.  They  are  generally 


1  See  p.  290  and  p.  292.  M.  Botta 

supposes  that  both  fringes  were  attached 
to  the  cross-belt  ( Monument  de  Ninive , 
vol.  y.  p.  86) ; but  in  that  case  the 

lower  of  the  two  would  scarcely  have 
terminated,  as  it  does,  horizontally. 


2 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  PI.  5. 

3 See  the  illustration  in  p.  237,  and 
compare  below,  pp.  498,  502,  506,  and 
507. 


Chap.  VII. 


EOYAL  ATTENDANTS. 


497 


represented  as  shorter  and  stouter  than  the  other  Assyrians. 
Though  placed  in  confidential  situations  about  the  person  of 
the  monarch,  they  seem  not  to  have  held  very  high  or  im- 


Heads  of  Eunuchs  (Nimrud). 


portant  offices.  The  royal  Yizier  is  never  a eunuch,  and 
eunuchs  are  rarely  seen  among  the  soldiers ; they  are  scribes, 
cooks,  musicians,  perhaps  priests ; 4 they  are  grooms-in-waiting, 
huntsmen,  parasol-bearers,  and  fan-bearers ; but  it  cannot  be 
said  with  truth  that  they  had  the  same  power  in  Assyria  which 
they  have  commonly  possessed  in  the  more  degraded  of  the 
Oriental  monarchies.  It  is  perhaps  a sound  interpretation  of 
the  name  Eabsaris  in  Scripture  to  understand  it  as  titular,  not 
appellative,5  and  to  translate  it  “ the  Chief  Eunuch”  or  “ the 
Master  of  the  Eunuchs ; ” and  if  so,  we  have  an  instance  of 
the  employment  by  one  Assyrian  king  of  a person  of  this  class 
on  an  embassy  to  a petty  sovereign ; but  the  sculptures  are  far 
from  bearing  out  the  notion  that  eunuchs  held  the  same  high 
position  in  the  Assyrian  court  as  they  have  since  held  generally 
in  the  East,6  where  they  have  not  only  continually  filled  the 


4 This  point  will  be  considered  in  the 
chapter  on  the  Religion  of  the  Assyrians. 

5 See  Smith's  Biblical  Dictionary , vol. 

VOL.  I. 


i.  p.  590. 

6 This  is  Mr.  Layard’s  view.  {Nineveh 
and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  325.) 

2 K 


498 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


highest  offices  of  state,  but  have  even  attained  to  sovereign 
power.  On  the  contrary,  their  special  charge  seems  rather  to 
have  been  the  menial  offices  about  the  person  of  the  monarch, 
which  imply  confidence  in  the  fidelity  of  those  to  whom  they 
are  intrusted,  but  not  submission  to  their  influence  in  the  con- 
duct of  state  affairs.  And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that,  instead 
of  becoming  more  influential  as  time  went  on,  they  appear  to 
have  become  less  so ; in  the  later  sculptures  the  royal  attend- 
ants are  far  less  generally  eunuchs  than  in  the  earlier  ones ; 7 and 
the  difference  is  most  marked  in  the  more  important  offices.8 
It  is  not  quite  certain  that  the  Chief  Eunuch  is  represented 

upon  the  sculptures.  Perhaps  we 
may  recognise  him  in  an  attendant, 
who  commonly  bears  a fan,  but 
whose  special  badge  of  office  is  a 
long  fringed  scarf  or  band,  which 
hangs  down  below  his  middle  both 
before  him  and  behind  him,  being 
passed  over  the  left  shoulder.  This 
officer  appears,  in  one  bas-relief, 
alone  in  front  of  the  king ; in  another, 
he  stands  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Vizier,  level  with  him,  facing  the 
king  as  he  drinks ; in  a third,  he 
receives  prisoners  after  a battle; 
while  in  another  part  of  the  same 
sculpture  he  is  in  the  king’s  camp 
preparing  the  table  for  his  master’s 
supper.  There  is  always  a good 
deal  of  ornamentation  about  his 
dress,  which  otherwise  nearly  re- 
The  Chief  Eunuch  (?)— Nimrud.  sembles  that  of  the  inferior  royal 

attendants,  consisting  of  a long  fringed  gown  or  robe,  a girdle 


7 See  especially  the  slabs  of  Asshur- 
bani-pal  (Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 
Pis.  47  to  49),  where  less  than  half  the 
royal  attendants  are  eunuchs. 

8 From  the  time  of  Sennacherib  down- 
wards the  king’s  quiver-bearer  and  mace- 


bearer,  two  attendants  very  close  to  his 
person,  cease  to  be  eunuchs.  The  last  chief 
eunuch  recorded  as  holding  the  office  of 
eponym  belongs  to  the  reign  of  Tiglath- 
Pileser  II. 


Chap.  YU. 


THE  YIZIER. 


499 


fringed  or  plain,  a cross-belt  generally  fringed,  and  tlie  scarf 
already  described.  His  head  and  feet  are  generally  bare,  though 
sometimes  the  latter  are  protected  by  sandals.9  He  is  found 
only  upon  the  sculptures  of  the  early  period. 

Among  the  officers  who  have  free  access  to  the  royal  person, 
there  is  one  who  stands  out  with  such  marked  prominence  from 
the  rest  that  he  has  been  properly  recognised  as  the  Grand 
Yizier  or  prime  minister  10 — at  once  the  chief  counsellor  of  the 
monarch,  and  the  man  whose  special  business  it  was  to  signify 
and  execute  his  will.  The  dress  of  the  Grand  Yizier  is  more 
rich  than  that  of  any  other  person  except  the  monarch ; 11  and 
there  are  certain  portions  of  his  apparel  which  he  and  the  king 
have  alone  the  privilege  of  wearing.  These  are,  principally, 
the  tasselled  apron  and  the  fringed  band  depending  from  the 
fillet,  the  former  of  which  is  found 
in  the  early  period  only,12  while  the 
latter  belongs  to  no  particular 
time,  but  throughout  the  whole 
series  of  sculptures  is  the  distinc- 
tive mark  of  royal  or  quasi-royal 
authority.  To  these  two  may  be 
added  the  long  ribbon  or  scarf, 
with  double  streamers  at  the  ends, 
which  depended  from,  and  perhaps 
fastened,  the  belt 13 — a royal  orna- 
ment worn  also  by  the  vizier  in  at 
least  one  representation.14 

The  chief  garment  of  the  Yizier  Head-dress  of  the  Vizier  (Khorsabad) 

is  always  a long  fringed  robe,  reaching  from  the  neck  to  the 


9 See  below,  p.  502. 

10  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  p.  327.  M.  Botta  suggests  that 
this  prominent  officer  is  “ un  Mage  ” 
(Monument,  vol.  v.  p.  86);  but  he  ap- 
pears in  scenes  which  have  no  religious 
character. 

11  Sometimes,  where  the  king  and  the 
vizier  appear  together,  the  robe  of  the 
vizier  is  even  richer  in  its  ornamenta- 
tion than  that  of  the  monarch.  (See 


Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  23.) 

12  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis. 
12  and  23.  There  is  one  bas-relief  whtre 
the  tasselled  apron  is  worn,  .not  only  by 
the  Yizier,  but  also  by  the  Chief  Eu- 
nuch and  other  principal  attendants. 
See  below,  p.  502. 

13  See  above,  p.  491,  and  compare  the 
illustration  opposite. 

14  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI. 


12. 


2 K 2 


500 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


feet.  This  is  generally  trimmed  with  embroidery  at  the  top, 
round  the  sleeves,  and  round  the  bottom.  It  is  either  seen 
to  be  confined  by  a broad  belt  round  the  waist,  or  else  is  covered 
from  the  waist  to  the  knees  by  two  falls  of  a heavy  and  deep 
fringe.  In  this  latter  case  a broad  cross-belt  is  worn  over  the 
left  shoulder,  and  the  upper  fall  of  fringe  hangs  from  the  cross- 
belt. A fillet  is  worn  upon  the  head,  which  is  often  highly 


Costume  of  the  Vizier. 
(Time  of  Sennacherib.) 


Costume  of  the  Vizier. 
(Time  of  Asshur-izir-pal.) 


ornamented.1  The  feet  are  sometimes  bare,  but  more  often  are 
protected  by  sandals,  or  (as  in  the  accompanying  representation) 
by  embroidered  shoes.  Ear-rings  adorn  the  ears;  bracelets, 
sometimes  accompanied  by  armlets,  the  arms.  A sword  is 
generally  worn  at  the  left  side. 

The  Vizier  is  ordinarily  represented  in  one  of  two  attitudes. 
Either  he  stands  with  his  two  hands  joined  in  front  of  him,  the 


1 See  the  woodcut  on  preceding  page. 


Chap.  VII. 


ROYAL  FAN-BEARERS. 


501 


right  hand  in  the  left,  and  the  fingers,  not  elapsed,  but  left 
loose — the  ordinary  attitude  of  passive  and  respectful  attention, 
in  which  officers  who  carry  nothing  await  the  orders  of  the 
king — or  he  has  the  right  arm  raised,  the  elbow  bent,  and 
the  right  hand  brought  to  a level  with  his  month,  while  the 
left  hand  rests  upon  the  hilt  of  the  sword  worn  at  his  left  side. 
In  this  latter  case  it  may  be  presumed  that  we  have  the  attitude 
of  conversation,  as  in  the  former  we  have  that  of  attentive 
listening.  Where  the  Vizier  assumes  this  energetic  posture, 
he  is  commonly  either  introducing  prisoners  or  bringing  in 
spoil  to  the  king.  When  he  is  quiescent,  he  stands  before  the 
throne  to  receive  the  king’s  orders,  or  witnesses  the  ceremony 
with  which  it  was  usual  to  conclude  a successful  hunting  expe- 
dition. 

The  pre-eminent  rank  and  dignity  of  this  officer  is  shown,  not 
only  by  his  participation  in  the  insignia  of  royal  authority,2  but 
also  and  very  clearly  by  the  fact,  that,  when  he  is  present,  no 
one  ever  intervenes  between  him  and  the  king.  He  has  the 
undisputed  right  of  precedence,  so  that  he  is  evidently  the  first 
subject  of  the  crown.  He,  and  he  alone,  is  seen  addressing  the 
monarch.  He  does  not  always  accompany  the  king  on  his 
military  expeditions ; but,  wdien  he  attends  them,  he  still 
maintains  his  position,3  having  a dignity  greater  than  that  of 
any  general,  and  so  taking  the  entire  direction  of  the  prisoners 
and  of  the  spoil. 

The  royal  fan-bearers  were  two  in  number.  They  were 
invariably  eunuchs.  Their  ordinary  position  was  behind  the 
monarch,  on  whom  they  attended  alike  in  the  retirement  of 
private  life  and  in  religious  and  civil  ceremonies.  On  some 
occasions  however  one  of  the  two  was  privileged  to  leave  his 
station  behind  the  king’s  chair  or  throne,  and,  advancing  in 
front,  to  perform  certain  functions  before  the  face  of  his  master. 
He  handed  his  master  the  sacred  cup  and  waited  to  receive  it 
back,4  at  the  same  time  diligently  discharging  the  ordinary 
duties  of  his  office  by  keeping  up  a current  of  air  and  chasing 

2 Supra,  p.  499. 

3 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis.  63  and  77  ; 2nd  Series,  PI.  23. 

4 Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  12. 


502 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


away  those  plagues  of  the  East — the  flies.  The  fan-bearer  thus 
privileged  wears  always  the  long  tasselled  scarf,  which  seems  to 
have  been  a badge  of  office,  and  may  not  improbably  mark  him 
for  the  Chief  Eunuch.5  In  the  absence  of  the  Vizier,  or  some- 
times in  subordination  to  him,6  he  introduced  tribute-bearers  to 
the  king,  reading  out  their  names  and  titles  from  a scroll  or 
tablet  which  he  held  in  his  left  hand. 


Tribute-bearers  presented  by  the  Chief  Eunuch  (Nimrud  obelisk). 


The  fan  carried  by  these  attendants  seems  in  most  instances 
to  have  been  made  of  feathers.  It  had  a shortish  handle,  which 
was  generally  more  or  less  ornamented,  and  frequently  termi- 
nated in  the  head  of  a ram  or  other  animal.  The  feathers  were 
sometimes  of  great  length,  and  bent  gracefully  by  their  own 
weight,  as  they  were  pointed  slantingly  towards  the  monarch. 
Occasionally  a comparatively  short  fan  was  used,  and  the 
feathers  were  replaced  by  a sort  of  brush,  which  may  have  been 
made  of  horse-hair,  or  possibly  of  some  vegetable  fibre.7 

The  other  attendants  on  the  monarch  require  no  special 
notice.  With  regard  to  their  number,  however,  it  may  be 
observed  that,  although  the  sculptures  generally  do  not  repre- 
sent them  as  very  numerous,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 


5 Supra,  p.  498. 

6 See  the  Black  Obelisk,  First  Side 
(. Monuments  of  Nineveh,  1st  Series,  PI. 
53),  where  the  king  is  faced  by  the 
vizier  in  the  topmost  compartment,  and 

immediately  below  by  this  official,  repre- 


sented as  in  the  woodcut  above. 

7  The  short  brush-fan  belongs  to  the 
earlier,  the  long  feather  fan  to  the  later, 
period.  (See  the  woodcuts  on  p.  493, 
above,  and  p.  515.) 


Chap.  YU. 


COURT  CEREMONIAL. 


503 


they  amounted  to  several  hundreds.  The  enormous  size  of  the 
palaces  can  scarcely  be  otherwise  accounted  for:  and  in  one 
sculpture  of  an  ex- 
ceptional character, 
where  the  artist 
seems  to  have  aimed 
at  representing  his 
subject  in  full,  we 
can  count  above 
seventy  attendants 
present  with  the 
monarch  at  one 
time.8  Of  these  less 
than  one-half  are 
eunuchs;  and  these 
wear  the  long  robe 
with  the  fringed 
belt  and  cross-belt. 

The  other  attend- 

, • Fans  or  fly-flappers  (Nimrud  and  Koyunjik). 

ants  wear  m many  J ^ 

cases  the  same  costume ; sometimes,  however,  they  are  dressed 

in  a tunic  and  greaves,  like  the  soldiers.9 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  court  ceremonial  of  the 
Assyrians  was  stately  and  imposing.  The  monarch  seems 
indeed  not  to  have  affected  that  privacy  and  seclusion  which 
forms  a predominant  feature  of  the  ceremonial  observed  in 
most  Oriental  monarchies.10  He  showed  himself  very  freely  to 
his  subjects  on  many  occasions.  He  superintended  in  person 
the  accomplishment  of  his  great  works.11  In  war  and  in  the 
chase  he  rode  in  an  open  chariot,  never  using  a litter,  though 


8 Monuments  of  Nineveh , 2nd  Series, 
Pis.  47  to  49. 

9 Still  they  do  not  seem  to  be  soldiers. 
They  carry  neither  spears,  shields,  nor 
hows,  and  they  stand  with  the  hands 
joined — an  attitude  peculiar  to  the  royal 
attendants. 

10  Herodotus  ascribed  the  invention 
of  this  practice  to  De'ioces,  his  first 

Median  king  (i.  99).  Diodorus  believed 


that  it  had  prevailed  in  Assyria  at  a 
much  earlier  date  (ii.  21).  But  in  this 
he  was  certainly  mistaken.  On  its 
general  prevalence  in  the  East,  see  Bris- 
son,  Be  Beg.  Pers.  Prihc.  i.  p.  23 ; and 
compare  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall , ch. 
xiii.  (vol.  ii.  p.  95,  Smith’s  edition). 

11  Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 2nd 
Series,  Pis.  12  and  15. 


504 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


litters  were  not  unknown  to  the  Assyrians.12  In  his  expeditions 
he  would  often  descend  from  his  chariot,  and  march  or  fight  on 
foot  like  the  meanest  of  his  subjects.  But  though  thus  fami- 
liarizing the  multitude  with  his  features  and  appearance,  he 
was  far  from  allowing  familiarity  of  address.  Both  in  peace 
and  war  he  was  attended  by  various  officers  of  state,  and  no  one 
had  speech  of  him  except  through  them.  It  would  even  seem 
as  if  two  persons  only  were  entitled  to  open  a conversation  with 
him- — the  Vizier  and  the  Chief  Eunuch.  When  he  received 
them,  he  generally  placed  himself  upon  his  throne,  sitting, 
while  they  stood  to  address  him.  It  is  strongly  indicative  of 
the  haughty  pride  of  these  sovereigns  that  they  carried  with 
them  in  their  distant  expeditions  the  cumbrous  thrones 1 whereon 
they  were  wont  to  sit  when  they  dispensed  justice  or  received 
homage.  On  these  thrones  they  sat,  in  or  near  their  fortified 
camps,  when  the  battle  or  the  siege  was  ended,  and  thus  sitting 
they  received  in  state  the  spoil  and  the  prisoners.  Behind 
them  on  such  occasions  were  the  two  fan-bearers,  while  near  at 
hand  were  guards,  scribes,  grooms,  and  other  attendants.  In 
their  palace  halls  undoubtedly  the  ceremonial  used  was  stricter, 
grander,  and  more  imposing.  The  sculptures,  however,  furnish 
no  direct  evidence  on  this  point,  for  there  is  nothing  to  mark 
the  scene  of  the  great  processional  pieces. 

In  the  pseudo-history  of  Ctesias  the  Assyrian  kings  were 
represented  as  voluptuaries  of  the  extremest  kind,  who  passed 
their  whole  lives  within  the  palace,  in  the  company  of  their 
concubines  and  their  eunuchs,  indulging  themselves  in  per- 
petual ease,  pleasure,  and  luxury.2  We  have  already  seen  how 
the  warlike  character  of  so  many  monarchs  gives  the  lie  to  these 
statements,  so  far  as  they  tax  the  Assyrian  kings  with  sloth  and 
idleness.3  It  remains  to  examine  the  charge  of  over-addiction 


12  See  below,  p.  588. 

1 For  representations  of  these  thrones 
see  pp.  393,  394.  Sargon's  throne  is 
represented  as  carried  by  two  attend- 
ants on  his  triumphant  return  from 
an  expedition.  (Botta,  Monument  de 
Ninive , vol.  i.  PL  18.)  Sennacherib 
sits  on  his  throne  to  receive  captives 


outside  the  walls  of  a town  supposed  to 
be  Lachish.  (Layard,  Nineveh  and  Baby- 
lon, pp.  150-152.)  Instances  of  kings 
sitting  on  their  thrones  inside  their 
fortified  camps  will  be  found  in  Mr. 
Layard’s  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis.  63 
and  77.  2 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  21,  23. 

3 See  above,  pp.  462-484. 


Chap.  VII. 


PRIVATE  LIFE  OF  THE  KING. 


505 


to  sensual  delights,  especially  to  those  of  the  lowest  and  grossest 
description.  Now  it  is  at  least  remarkable  that,  so  far  as  we 
have  any  real  evidence,  the  Assyrian  kings  appear  as  mono- 
gamists. In  the  inscription  on  the  god  Nebo,  the  artist  dedi- 
cates his  statue  “ to  his  lord  Yul-lush  (?)  and  his  lady , Sammu- 
ramit.”4  In  the  solitary  sculptured  representation  of  the 
private  life  of  the  king,5  he  is  seen  in  the  company  of  one 
female  only.  Even  in  the  very  narrative  of  Ctesias,  Ninus  has 
but  one  wife,  Semiramis;6  and  Sardanapalus,  notwithstanding 
his  many  concubines,  has  but  five  children,  three  sons  and  two 
daughters.7  It  is  not  intended  to  press  these  arguments  to  an 
extreme,  or  to  assume,  on  the  strength  of  them,  that  the  Assy- 
rian monarchs  were  really  faithful  to  one  woman.  They  may 
have  had — nay,  it  is  probable  that  they  had — a certain  number 
of  concubines;  but  there  is  really  not  the  least  ground  for 
believing  that  they  carried  concubinage  to  an  excess,  or  over- 
stepped in  this  respect  the  practice  of  the  best  Eastern  sove- 
reigns. At  any  rate  they  were  not  the  voluptuaries  which 
Ctesias  represented  them.  A considerable  portion  of  their  lives 
was  passed  in  the  toils  and  dangers  of  war ; and  their  peaceful 
hours,  instead  of  being  devoted  to  sloth  and  luxury  in  the 
retirement  of  the  palace,  were  chiefly  employed,  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  in  active  and  manly  exercises  in  the  field,  which 
involved  much  exertion  and  no  small  personal  peril. 

The  favourite  occupation  of  the  king  in  peace  was  the  chase 
of  the  lion.  In  the  early  times  he  usually  started  on  a hunting 
expedition  in  his  chariot,  dressed  as  when  he  went  out  to  war, 
and  attended  by  his  charioteer,  some  swordsmen,  and  a groom 
holding  a led  horse.  He  carried  a bow  and  arrows,  a sword, 
one  or  two  daggers,  and  a spear,  which  last  stood  in  a rest  made 
for  it  at  the  back  of  the  chariot.8  Two  quivers,  each  containing 
an  axe  and  an  abundant  supply  of  arrows,  hung  from  the  chariot 


4 See  the  author’s  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p. 
382,  note  2,  2nd  ed. 

5 Supra,  p.  493.  M.  Lenormant  ap- 

pears to  have  mistaken  the  eunuchs  who 

are  in  attendance,  playing  on  instru- 

ments or  fanning  the  king,  for  the  other 


members  of  his  hareem  ( Manuel , vol.  ii. 
p.  122). 

6 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  4,  § 1 ; 7,  § 1. 

7 Ibid.  ii.  26,  § 8. 

8 See  p.  344. 


50  6 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


transversely  across  its  right  side,  while  a shield  armed  with  teeth 
was  suspended  behind.  When  a lion  was  found,  the  king  pur- 
sued it  in  his  chariot,  letting  fly  his  arrows  as  he  went,  and 
especially  seeking  to  pierce  the  animal  about  the  heart  and 
head.  Sometimes  he  transfixed  the  beast  with  three  or  four 

shafts  before  it  succumbed.  Oc- 
casionally the  lion  attacked  him 
in  his  chariot,  and  was  met  with 
spear  and  shield,9  or  with  a 
fresh  arrow,  according  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  moment,  or  the 
monarch’s  preference  for  one  or 
the  other  weapon.  On  rare  oc- 
casions the  monarch  descended 
to  the  ground,  and  fought  afoot. 

King  killing  a lion  (Nimrud).  He  would  then  engage  the  lion 

in  close  combat  with  no  other 
weapon  but  a short  sword,  which  he  strove  to  plunge,  and  often 
plunged,  into  its  heart. 


In  the  later  times,  though  the  chariot  was  still  employed  to 
some  extent  in  the  lion-hunts,  it  appears  to  have  been  far  more 


See  p.  347. 


Chap.  YIT. 


LION-HUNTING. 


50; 


usual  for  the  king  to  enjoy  the  sport  on  foot.  He  carried  a 
straight  sword,  which  seems  to  have  been  a formidable  weapon ; 
it  was  strong,  very  broad,  and  two  feet  or  a little  more  in 
length.  Two  attendants  waited  closely  upon  the  monarch,  one  of 
whom  carried  a bow  and  arrows,  while  the  other  was  commonly 
provided  with  one  or  two  spears.  From  these  attendants  the 
king  took  the  bow  or  a spear  at  pleasure,  usually  commencing 
the  attack  with  his  arrows,  and  finally  despatching  the  spent 


King,  with  attendant,  stabbing  a lion  (Koyunjik). 


animal  with  sword  or  spear,  as  he  deemed  best.  Sometimes, 
but  not  very  often,  the  spearman  in  attendance  carried  also  a 
shield,  and  held  both  spear  and  shield  in  advance  of  his  master 
to  protect  him  from  the  animal’s  spring.10  Generally  the 
monarch  faced  the  danger  with  no  such  protection,  and  received 
the  brute  on  his  sword  or  thrust  him  through  with  his  pike. 
Perhaps  the  sculptures  exaggerate  the  danger  which  he  affronted 
at  such  moments ; but  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  there  was 
not  a good  deal  of  peril  incurred  in  these  hand-to-hand  con- 
tests.11 


10  See  the  illustration,  p.  359. 

11  In  an  inscription  appended  to  one 
of  his  sculptures,  Asshur-bani-pal  says 


— “ I,  Asshur-bani-pal,  king  of  the  na- 
tions, king  of  Assyria,  in  my  great 
courage  fighting  on  foot  with  a lion, 


508 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Two  modes  of  hunting  the  king  of  beasts  were  followed  at 
this  time.  Either  he  was  sought  in  his  native  haunts,  which 
were  then,  as  now,  the  reedy  coverts  by  the  side  of  the  canals 
and  great  streams ; or  he  was  procured  beforehand,  conveyed 
to  the  hunting-ground,  and  there  turned  out  before  the  hunters. 
In  the  former  case  the  monarch  took  the  field  accompanied  by  his 
huntsmen  and  beaters  on  horse  and  foot,  these  last  often  holding 
dogs  in  leash,  which,  apparently,  were  used  only  to  discover  and 
arouse  the  game,  but  were  not  slipped  at  it  when  started.  No 
doubt  the  hunt  was  sometimes  entirely  on  the  land,  the  monarch 
accompanying  his  beaters  along  one  or  other  of  the  two  banks  of 
a canal  or  stream.  But  a different  plan  is  known  to  have  been 
adopted  on  some  occasions.  Disposing  his  beaters  to  the  right 
and  left  upon  both  banks,  the  monarch  with  a small  band  of 
attendants  would  take  ship,  and,  while  his  huntsmen  sought  to 
start  the  game  on  either  side,  he  would  have  himself  rowed 
along  so  as  just  to  keep  pace  with  them,  and  would  find  his 
sport  in  attacking  such  lions  as  took  the  water.  The  monarch’s 
place  on  these  occasions  was  the  middle  of  the  boat.  Before  him 
and  behind  him  were  guards  armed  with  spears,  who  were  thus 
ready  to  protect  their  master,  whether  the  beast  attacked  him  in 
front  or  rear.  The  monarch  used  a round  bow,  like  that  com- 
monly carried  in  war,  and  aimed  either  at  the  heart  or  at  the  head. 
The  spearmen  presented  their  weapons  at  the  same  time,  while 
the  sides  of  the  boat  were  also  sufficiently  high  above  the  water 
to  afford  a considerable  protection  against  the  animal’s  spring. 
An  attendant  immediately  behind  the  monarch  held  additional 
arrows  ready  for  him ; and  after  piercing  the  noble  brute  with 
three  or  four  of  these  weapons,  the  monarch  had  commonly  the 
satisfaction  of  seeing  him  sink  down  and  expire.  The  carcase 
was  then  taken  from  the  water : the  fore  and  hind  legs  were 
lashed  together  with  string,  and  the  beast  was  suspended  from 
the  hinder  part  of  the  boat,  where  he  hung  over  the  water  just 
out  of  the  sweep  of  the  oars.12 


terrible  for  his  size,  seized  him  by  the 
ear,  and  in  the  name  of  Asshur  and 
Ishtar,  Goddess  of  war,  with  the  spear 
that  was  in  my  hand  I terminated  his 


life.”  (Fox  Talbot  in  Journal  of  the 
Asiatic  Society , vol.  xix.  p.  272.) 

12  See  the  woodcut,  p.  361. 


Chap.  VII. 


LION-HUNTING. 


509 


At  other  times,  when  it  was  felt  that  the  natural  chase  of 
the  animal  might  afford  little  or  no  sport,  the  Assyrians  (as 
above  stated)  called  art  to  their  assistance,  and,  having  obtained 
a supply  of  lions  from  a distance,  brought  them  in  traps  or 
cages  to  the  hunting-ground,  and  there  turned  them  out  before 
the  monarch.  The  walls  of  the  cage  were  made  of  thick  spars 
of  wood,  with  interstices  between  them,  through  which  the  lion 
could  both  see  and  be  seen:  probably  the  top  was  entirely 
covered  with  boards,  and  upon  these  was  raised  a sort  of  low 
hut  or  sentry-box,  just  large  enough  to  contain  a man,  who, 


when  the  proper  moment  arrived,  peeped  forth  from  his  con- 
cealment and  cautiously  raised  the  front  of  the  trap,  which 
was  a kind  of  drop-door  working  in  a groove.  The  trap  being 
thus  opened,  the  lion  stole  out,  looking  somewhat  ashamed  of 
his  confinement,  but  doubtless  anxious  to  vent  his  spleen  on 
the  first  convenient  object.  The  king,  prepared  for  his  attack, 
saluted  him,  as  he  left  his  cage,  with  an  arrow,  and,  as  he 
advanced,  with  others,  which  sometimes  stretched  him  dead 
upon  the  plain,  sometimes  merely  disabled  him,  while  now  and 
then  they  only  goaded  him  to  fury.  In  this  case  he  would 
spring  at  the  royal  chariot,  clutch  some  part  of  it,  and  in  his 


5io 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


agony  grind  it  between  his  teeth,1  or  endeavour  to  reach  the 
inmates  of  the  car  from  behind.2  If  the  king  had  descended 
from  the  car  to  the  plain,  the  infuriated  beast  might  make  his 
spring  at  the  royal  person,  in  which  case  it  must  have  required 
a stout  heart  to  stand  unmoved,  and  aim  a fresh  arrow  at  a vital 
part  while  the  creature  was  in  mid-air,  especially  if  (as  we  some- 
times see  represented)  a second  lion  was  following  close  upon 
the  first  and  would  have  to  be  received  within  a few  seconds.3 
It  would  seem  that  the  lions  on  some  occasions  were  not  to  be 
goaded  into  making  an  attack,  but  simply  endeavoured  to  escape 


by  flight.  To  prevent  this,  troops  were  drawn  up  in  a double 
line  of  spearmen  and  archers  round  the  space  within  which  the 
lions  were  let  loose,  the  large  shields  of  the  front  or  spear- 
man line  forming  a sort  of  wall,  and  the  spears  a chevaux  de 
f 'rise , through  which  it  was  almost  impossible  for  the  beasts  to 
break.  In  front  of  the  soldiers  attendants  held  hounds  in 
leashes,  which  either  by  their  baying  and  struggling  frightened 


1 See  the  illustration,  p.  358. 

2 Such  attempts  are  common  both  in 

the  earlier  and  the  later  sculptures.  (See 
pp.  344  and  347.) 


3  As  in  the  slab  of  Asshur-bani-pal, 
from  which  the  representation  is  taken 
on  p.  359. 


Chap.  VII. 


LION-HUNTING. 


51 1 

the  animals  back,  or  perhaps  assisted  to  despatch  them.4  The 
king  meanwhile  plied  his  bow,  and  covered  the  plain  with 
carcases,  often  striking  a single  beast  with  five  or  six  shafts. 

The  number  of  lions  destroyed  at  these  royal  battues  is  very 
surprising.  In  one  representation 5 no  fewer  than  eighteen  are 
seen  upon  the  field,  of  which  eleven  are  dead  and  five  seriously 
wounded.  The  introduction  of  trapped  beasts  would  seem  to 
imply  that  the  game,  which  under  the  earlier  monarchs  had 
been  exceedingly  abundant,6  failed  comparatively  under  the  later 
ones,  who  therefore  imported  it  from  a distance.  It  is  evident 
however  that  this  scarcity  was  not  allowed  to  curtail  the  royal 
amusement.  To  gratify  the  monarch,  hunters  sought  remote 
and  savage  districts,  where  the  beast  was  still  plentiful,  and, 
trapping  their  prey,  conveyed  it  many  hundreds  of  miles  to 
yield  a momentary  pleasure  to  the  royal  sportsman. 

It  is  instructive  to  contrast  with  the  boldness  shown  in  the 
lion-hunts  of  this  remote  period  the  feelings  and  conduct  of 
the  present  inhabitants  of  the  region.  The  Arabs,  by  whom  it 
is  in  the  main  possessed,  are  a warlike  race,  accustomed  from 
infancy  to  arms  and  inured  to  combat.  “ Their  hand  is  against 
every  man,  and  every  man’s  hand  is  against  them.”  Yet  they 
tremble  if  a lion  is  but  known  to  be  near,7  and  can  only  with 
the  utmost  difficulty  be  persuaded  by  an  European  to  take  any 
part  in  the  chase  of  so  dangerous  an  animal.8 

The  lioness,  no  less  than  the  lion,  appears  as  a beast  of  chase 
upon  the  sculptures.  It  seems  that  in  modern  times  she  is 
quite  as  much  feared  as  her  consort.  Indeed,  when  she  has  laid 


4 No  instance,  however,  is  found  of  a 
hound  engaged  with  a lion. 

5 See  the  Great  Lion  Hunt  of  Asshur- 
bani-pal  in  the  basement  room,  British 
Museum. 

6 Tiglath-Pileser  I.  relates  that  in  his 
various  journeys  he  killed  800  lions. 
(Inscription,  p.  56.) 

7 Supra,  p.  39 ; compare  Loftus, 
Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  pp.  243,  244,  &c. 

• 8 Loftus,  p.  261.  Mr.  Layard,  how- 
ever, relates  that  the  Maidan  Arabs 
have  a plan  on  the  strength  of  which 
they  venture  to  attack  lions,  even  singly. 


“ A man,  having  bound  his  right  arm 
with  strips  of  tamarisk,  and  holding  in 
his  hand  a strong  piece  of  the  same  wood, 
about  a foot  or  more  in  length,  hardened 
in  the  fire  and  sharpened  at  both  ends, 
will  advance  boldly  into  the  animal’s 
lair.  When  the  lion  springs  upon  him, 
he  forces  the  wood  into  the  animal’s 
extended  jaws,  which  will  then  be  held 
open  whilst  he  can  despatch  the  as- 
tonished beast  at  his  leisure  with  the 
pistol  which  he  holds  in  his  left  hand.” 
(Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  567.) 


512 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


up  cubs,  she  is  even  thought  to  be  actually  the  more  dangerous 
of  the  two.9 

Next  to  the  chase 
of  the  lion  and 
lioness,  the  early 
Assyrian  monarchs 
delighted  in  that  of 
the  wild  bull.  It  is 
not  quite  certain 
what  exact  species 
of  animal  is  sou 
to  be  expressed  by 
the  representations  upon  the  sculptures ; but  on  the  whole  it 
is  perhaps  most  probable  that  the  Aurochs  or  European  bison 
(. Bos  urus  of  naturalists)  is  the  beast  intended.10  At  any  rate 
it  was  an  animal  of  such  strength  and  courage  that,  according 
to  the  Assyrian  belief,  it  ventured  to  contend  with  the  lion. 


The  Assyrian  monarchs  chased  the  wild  bull  in  their  chariots 
without  dogs,  but  with  the  assistance  of  horsemen,  who  turned 


9 Loftus,  pp.  259-262. 

10  The  Aurochs  is  still  found  in  the 
Caucasus.  Its  fore-parts  are  covered  by 
a sort  of  frizzled  wool  or  hair,  which 
“ forms  a beard  or  small  mane  upon  the 
throat”  ( Encycl . Brit,  ad  voc.  Mam- 
malia, vol.  xiv.  p.  215).  Such  a mane 
is  often  represented  upon  the  sculptures. 
(Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  Pis.  32, 
46,  &c.)  Its  horns  are  placed  low,  and 


are  very  thick.  Its  shoulders  are  heavy 
and  of  great  depth.  In  height  it  mea- 
sures six  feet  at  the  shoulder,  and  is 
between  ten  and  eleven  feet  in  length 
from  the  nose  to  the  insertion  of  the 
tail.  All  these  characteristics  seem  to 
me  to  agree  well  with  the  sculptured 
bulls  of  the  Assyrians,  which  are  far 
less  like  the  wild  buffalo  (Ros  bubalus). 


Chap.  VII. 


BULL-HUNTING. 


513 


the  animals  when  they  fled,  and  brought  them  within  the 
monarch’s  reach.11  The  king  then  aimed  his  arrows  at  them, 
and  the  attendant  horsemen,  who  were  provided  with  bows, 
seem  to  have  been  permitted  to  do  the  same.  The  bull  seldom 
fell  until  he  had  received  a number  of  wounds ; and  wre  some- 
times see  as  many  as  five  arrows  still  fixed  in  the  body  of  one 
that  has  succumbed.12  It  would  seem  that  the  bull,  when 
pushed,  would,  like  the  lion,  make  a rush  at  the  king’s  chariot, 
in  which  case  the  monarch  seized  him  by  one  of  the  horns  and 
gave  him  the  coup  de  grace  with  his  sword. 


The  special  zest  with  which  this  animal  was  pursued1  may 
have  arisen  in  part  from  its  scarcity.  The  Aurochs  is  wild 
and  shy  ; it  dislikes  the  neighbourhood  of  man,  and  has  retired 
before  him  till  it  is  now  found  only  in  the  forests  of  Lithuania, 
Carpathia,  and  the  Caucasus.  It  seems  nearly  certain  that,  in 
the  time  of  the  later  kings,  the  species  of  wild  cattle  previously 
hunted,  whatever  it  was,  had  disappeared  from  Assyria  alto- 
gether ; at  least  this  is  the  only  probable  account  that  can 
be  given  of  its  non-occurrence  in  the  later  sculptures,  more 


11  See  Mr.  Layard’s  Monuments , 1st 
Series,  PI.  48,  fig.  6. 

12  Ibid.  PI.  11. 

1 The  pursuit  of  the  wild  hull  is  repre- 
sented with  more  frequency  and  in 
greater  detail  upon  the  early  sculptures 
than  even  that  of  the  lion.  In  the 
Nimrud  series  we  see  the  bull  pursued 
by  chariots,  horsemen,  and  footmen, 
both  separately  and  together.  We  observe 

VOL.  I. 


him  prancing  among  reeds,  reposing, 
fighting  with  the  lion,  charging  the 
. king’s  chariot,  wounded  and  falling, 
fallen,  and  lastly  laid  put  in  state  for 
the  final  religious  ceremony.  No  such 
elaborate  series  illustrates  the  chase  of 
the  rival  animal.  (See  Mr.  Layard  s 
Monuments,  1st  Series,  Pis.  11,  12,  32, 
43,  44,  45,  46,  48,  and  49.) 

2 L 


5i4 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


especially  in  those  of  Assbur-bani-pal,  the  son  of  Esar-haddon, 
which  seem  intended  to  represent  the  chase  under  every  aspect 
known  at  the  time.  We  might  therefore  presume  it  to  have 
been,  even  in  the  early  period,  already  a somewhat  rare  animal. 
And  so  we  find  in  the  Inscriptions  that  the  animal,  or  animals, 
which  appear  to  represent  wild  cattle,2  were  only  met  with  in 
outlying  districts  of  the  empire — on  the  borders  of  Syria  and 
in  the  country  about  Harran — and  then  in  such  small  numbers 3 
as  to  imply  that  even  there  they  were  not  very  abundant. 

When  the  chase  of  the  nobler  animals — the  lion  and  the  wild 
bull — had  been  conducted  to  a successful  issue,  the  hunters 
returned  in  a grand  procession  to  the  capital,  carrying  with 
them  as  trophies  of  their  prowess  the  bodies  of  the  slain.  These 
were  borne  aloft  on  the  shoulders  of  men,  three  or  four  being 
required  to  carry  each  beast.  Having  been  brought  to  an 
appointed  spot,  they  were  arranged  side  by  side  upon  the  ground, 
the  heads  of  all  pointing  the  same  way;  and  the  monarch, 
attended  by  several  of  his  principal  officers,  as  the  Yizier,  the 
Chief  Eunuch,  the  fan -bearers,  the  bow  and  mace  bearers,  and 
also  by  a number  of  musicians,  came  to  the  place,  and  solemnly 
poured  a libation  over  the  prostrate  forms,  first  however  (as  it 
would  seem)  raising  the  cup  to  his  own  lips.4  It  is  probable 
that  this  ceremony  had  to  some  extent  a religious  character. 


2  There  are  two  animals  mentioned 

in  the  Tiglath-Pileser  Inscription  which 
have  been  thought  to  represent  wild 
cattle.  These  are  hunted  respectively  in 

the  Hittite  country,  i.e.  Northern  Syria, 
and  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Harran. 
( Inscription , pp.  54  and  56,  1st  column.) 
Sir  H.  Rawlinson  translates,  in  the  two 
places,  “ wild  bulls  ” and  “ wild  buffa- 
loes.” Dr.  Hincks  agrees  in  the  former 
rendering,  while  in  the  latter  passage 
he  suggests  “ elephants.”  But  elephants 
seem  not  to  be  able  to  exist  in  the  wild 
state  more  than  a very  few  degrees  out- 
side the  tropics. 

The  Assyrian  word  in  the  first  of  the 
two  passages  is  read  as  “ Rim,”  and 
the  animal  should  therefore  be  identical 
with  the  DN"1  or  DST  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. Although  the  Arabs  give  the 
name  of  Raim  to  a large  antelope,  and  a 


similar  use  of  that  term  seems  to  have 
been  know  n in  Egypt  (Layard,  Nineveh 
and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  429),  yet  the 
Hebrew  term  “ Rim  ” appears,  from  a 
comparison  of  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs,  almost  certainly  to  mean  an 
animal  of  the  ox  kind.  (See  especially 
Is.  xxxiv.  17,  where  it  is  joined  with 
the  domestic  bull,  and  Job  xxxix.  9-12, 
where  the  questions  derive  their  force 
from  an  implied  comparison  with  that 
animal.) 

3 Four  “ Rims  ” only  are  mentioned 
as  slain.  Of  the  other  animal  ten  were 
slain  and  four  taken.  Of  lions  on  the 
same  expedition  Tiglath-Pileser  slew  a 
hundred  and  twenty. 

4 This  appears  from  the  sculpture 
represente  1 by  Mr.  Layard  in  his  Monu- 
ments, 1st  Series,  PI.  12,  where  the  cere- 
mony is  performed  over  a bull. 


Chap.  VII. 


CHASE  OF  THE  WILD  ASS. 


515 


The  Assyrian  monarchs  commonly  ascribe  the  success  of  their 
hunting  expeditions  to  the  gods  Nin  (or  Ninip)  and  Nergal ; 5 
and  we  may  well  understand  that  a triumphant  return  would  be 
accompanied  by  a thank-offering  to  the  great  protectors  under 
whose  auspices  success  had  been  achieved. 

Besides  the  wild  bull  and  the  lion,  the  Assyrians  are  known 
to  have  hunted  the  following  animals — the  onager  or  wild  ass, 
the  stag,  the  ibex  or  wild  goat,  the  gazelle,  and  the  hare. 


The  chase  of  the  wild  ass  was  conducted  in  various  ways. 
The  animal  was  most  commonly  pursued  with  dogs.  The  large 
and  powerful  hounds  of  the  Assyrians,  of  which  a certain  use 
was  made  even  in  the  chase  of  the  lion,6  have  been  already 
noticed ; but  it  may  be  desirable  in  this  place  to  give  a fuller 
account  of  them.  They  were  of  a type  approaching  to  that  of 
our  mastiff,  being  smooth  haired,  strong  limbed,  with  a some- 
what heavy  head  and  neck,  small  pointed  but  drooping  ears,7 
and  a long  tail  which  was  bushy  and  a little  inclined  to  curl. 
They  seem  to  have  been  very  broad  across  the  chest,  and  alto- 
gether better  developed  as  to  their  fore  than  as  to  their  hind 
parts,  though  even  their  hind  legs  were  tolerably  strong  and 
sinewy.  They  must  have  been  exceedingly  bold,  if  they  really 
faced  the  hunted  lion  ; and  their  pace  must  have  been  consider- 
able, if  they  were  found  of  service  in  chasing  the  wild  ass. 


5 See  above,  pp.  132  and  136. 
u Supra,  pp.  508  and  510. 

' The  ear  is  commonly  represented  as 


drooping,  but  some  specimens  indicate 
that  it  could  be  erected  at  pleasure.  (See 
p.  234,  No.  I.) 


2 l 2 


5i6 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


The  hunters  are  represented  as  finding  the  wild  asses  in 
herds,  among  which  are  seen  a certain  number  of  foals.  The 
king  and  his  chief  attendants  pursue  the  game  on  horseback, 
armed  with  bows  and  arrows,  and  discharging  their  arrows  as 


they  go.  Hounds  also — not  now  held  in  leash,  but  free — join 
in  the  hunt,  pressing  on  the  game,  and  generally  singling  out 
some  one  individual  from  the  herd,  either  a young  colt,  or  some- 
times a full-grown  animal.  The  horsemen,  occasionally,  brought 
down  the  asses  with  their  shafts  ; when  their  archery  failed  of 
success,  the  chase  depended  on  the  hounds,  which  are  represented 
as  running  even  the  full-grown  animal  to  a stand,  and  then 


worrying  him  till  the  hunters  came  up  to  give  the  last  blow. 
Considering  the  speed  of  the  full-grown  wild  ass,  which  is  now 
regarded  as  almost  impossible  to  take,8  we  may  perhaps  con- 


s  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  270,  note. 


Chap.  VII. 


CATCHING  THE  WILD  ASS. 


517 

elude  that  the  animals  thus  run  down  by  the  hounds  were 
such  as  the  hunters  had  previously  wounded ; 9 for  it  can 
scarcely  be  supposed  that  such  heavily-made  dogs  as  the 
Assyrian  could  really  have  caught  an  unwounded  and  full-grown 
wild  ass. 


Instead  of  shooting  the  wild  ass,  or  hunting  ^him  to  the 
death  with  hounds,  an  endeavour  was  sometimes  made  to  take 
him  alive.  A species  of  noose  seems  to  have  been  made  by 
means  of  two  ropes  interlaced,  which  were  passed — how,  we 
cannot  say— round  the  neck  of  the  animal,  and  held  him  in 


such  a way  that  all  his  struggles  to  release  himself  were  vain. 
This  mode  of  capture  recalls  the  use  of  the  lasso  by  the  South 
Americans,  and  the  employment  of  nooses  by  various  nations, 


Yet  it  must  be  confessed  that  in  the  representations  no  trace  of  a wound  is  to  be 


518 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


not  merely  in  hunting,  but  in  warfare.1  It  is  doubtful,  how- 
ever, if  the  Assyrian  practice  approached  at  all  closely  to  any 
of  these.  The  noose,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  was  of  a very 
peculiar  kind.  It  was  not  formed  by  means  of  a slip-knot  at 
the  end  of  a single  cord,  but  resulted  from  the  interlacing  of 
two  ropes  one  with  the  other.  There  is  great  difficulty  in 
understanding  how  the  ropes  were  got  into  their  position.  Cer- 
tainly no  single  throw  could  have  placed  them  round  the  neck 
of  the  animal  in  the  manner  represented,  nor  could  the  capture 
have  been  effected,  according  to  all  appearance,  by  a single 
hunter.  Two  persons,  at  least,  must  have  been  required  to  com- 
bine their  efforts,  one  before  and  one  behind  the  creature  which 
it  was  designed  to  capture. 


Deer,  which  have  always  abounded  in  Assyria,2  were  either 
hunted  with  dogs,  or  driven  by  beaters  into  nets,  or  sometimes 
shot  with  arrows  by  sportsmen.  The  woodcut  on  this  page 
represents  a dog  in  chase  of  a hind,  and  shows  that  the  hounds 


1 See  Herod,  vii.  85,  and  the  author’s 

note  ad  loe.  vol.  iv.  p.  75.  Compare 
Pausan.  i.  21,  § 8 ; Suidas  ad  voc.  aeipa, 
and  Sir  G.  Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyp- 


tians, 1st  Series,  vol.  iii.  p.  15. 

2 See  above,  p.  225 ; and  compare 
Layard’s  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii. 
p.  431. 


Chap.  VII. 


CHASE  OF  THE  DEEE. 


519 


which  the  Assyrians  used  for  this  purpose  were  of  the  same 
breed  as  those  employed  in  the  hunt  of  the  lion  and  of  the 
wild  ass.3  In  the  woodcut  below  we  have  a stricken  stag,  which 
may,  perhaps,  have  been  also  hard  pressed  by  hounds,  in  the 


act  of  leaping  from  rocky  ground  into  water.  It  is  interesting 
to  find  this  habit  of  the  stag,  with  which  the  modern  English 
sportsman  is  so  familiar,  not  merely  existing  in  Assyria,  but 
noticed  by  Assyrian  sculptors,  at  the  distance  of  more  than 
twenty-five  centuries  from  our  own  time. 

When  deer  were  to  be  taken  by  nets,  the  sportsman  began 
by  setting  in  an  upright  position,  with  the  help  of  numerous 
poles  and  pegs,  a long,  low  net,  like  the  Sl/ctvov  of  the  Greeks.4 


3 Supra,  pp.  510,  516,  and  517. 

4 For  representations  of  the  8'lktvov 
see  Dr.  Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Greek  and 
Roman  Antiquities , p.  989,  2nd  ed.;  and 
for  descriptions  of  its  use  cf.  Virg.  JEn. 
iv.  121;  Eurip.  Bacch.  821-832;  .ZElian. 


- Hist . An.  xii.  46 ; Oppian.  Cyneget.  iv* 
120,  &c.  Nets  of  a similar  construction 
were  used  for  the  same  purpose  by  the 
Egyptians.  (Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyp- 
tians, 1st  Series,  vol.  iii.  pp.  4-7.) 


520 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


This  was  carried  round  in  a curved  line  of  considerable  length, 
so  as  to  enclose  an  ample  space  on  every  side  excepting  one, 
which  was  left  open  for  the  deer  to  enter.  The  meshes  of  the 
net  were  large  and  not  very  regular.  They  were  carefully 


secured  by  knots  at  all  the  angles.  The  net  was  bordered  both 
at  top  and  at  bottom  by  a rope  of  much  greater  strength  and 
thickness  than  that  which  formed  the  network ; and  this  was 
fastened  to  the  ground  at  the  two  extremities  by  pegs  of  supe- 
rior size.  The  general  height  of  the  net  was  about  that  of  a 


No.  n.  Portion  of  net,  showing  the  arrangement  of  the  meshes  and  the  pegs 

(Koyunjik). 


man,  but  the  two  ends  were  sloped  gently  to  the  ground. 
Beaters,  probably  accompanied  by  dogs,  roused  the  game  in 
the  coverts,  which  was  then  driven  by  shouts  and  barkings 
towards  the  place  where  the  net  was  set.  If  it  once  entered 
within  the  two  extremities  of  the  net  (a  b in  woodcut  No.  I.), 
its  destruction  was  certain;  for  the  beaters,  following  on  its 


Chap.  VII. 


CHASE  OF  THE  IBEX. 


521 


traces,  occupied  the  space  by  which  it  had  entered,  and  the  net 
itself  was  not  sufficiently  visible  for  the  deer  to  rise  at  it  and 
clear  it  by  a leap. 

In  the  chase  of  the  ibex  or  wild  goat,  horsemen  were  em- 
ployed to  discover  the  animals,  which  were  generally  found  in 
herds,  and  to  drive  them  towards  the  sportsman,  who  waited  in 


No.  I.  Hunted  ibex  flying  at  full  speed. 

ambush  until  the  game  appeared  within  bowshot.5  An  arrow 
was  then  let  fly  at  the  nearest  or  the  choicest  animal,  which 
often  fell  at  the  first 
discharge.  The  sport 
was  tame  compared 
with  many  other 
kinds,  and  was  pro- 
bably not  much  af- 
fected by  the  higher 
orders. 

The  chase  of  the 
gazelle  is  not  shown 
on  the  sculptures.  In 
modern  times  they  are  taken  by  the  greyhound  and  the  falcon, 
separately  or  in  conjunction,  the  two  being  often  trained  to 
hunt  together.1  They  are  somewhat  difficult  to  run  down  with 


5 On  the  slab  from  which  the  ibexes 
represented  above  are  taken,  the  king 
and  an  attendant  are  seen  crouching  as 
the  herd  approaches,  in  such  a way  as 
to  make  it  evident  that  the  intention 


was  to  represent  them  as  lying  in  am- 
bush. 

1 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Baby- 
lon, pp.  481-483. 


522 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


dogs  only,  except  immediately  after  they  have  drunk  water  in 
hot  weather.2  That  the  Assyrians  sometimes  captured  them, 

appears  by  a hunting- 
scene  which  Mr.  Layard 
discovered  at  Khorsabad, 
where  an  attendant  is  re- 
presented carrying  a ga- 
zelle on  his  shoulders, 
and  holding  a hare  in  his 
right  hand.3  As  gazelles 
are  very  abundant  both 
in  the  Sinjar  country  and 
in  the  district  between 
the  Tigris  and  the  Zagros 

Sportsman  carrying  a gazelle  (Khorsabad). 

range,  we  may  suppose 
that  the  Assyrians  sometimes  came  upon  them  unawares,  and 
transfixed  them  with  their  arrows  before  tb*ey  could  make 
their  escape.  They  may  also  have  taken  them  in  nets,  as  they 
were  accustomed  to  take  deer  ; 5 but  we  have  no  evidence  that 
they  did  so. 

The  hare  is  seen  very  commonly  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
attend  upon  the  huntsmen.6  It  is  always  represented  as  very 
small  in  proportion  to  the  size  of  the  men,  whence  we  may 
perhaps  conclude  that  the  full-grown  animal  was  less  esteemed 
than  the  leveret.  As  the  huntsmen  in  these  representations 
have  neither  nets  nor  dogs,  but  seem  to  obtain  their  game  solely 
by  the  bow,  we  must  presume  that  they  were  expert  enough  to 
strike  the  hare  as  it  ran. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  making  such  a supposition  as  this, 
since  the  Assyrians  have  left  us  an  evidence  of  their  skill  as 
marksmen,  which  implies  even  greater  dexterity.  The  game 
which  they  principally  sought  in  the  districts  where  they  occa- 


2 See  Mr.  Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Baby- 
lon, p.  482,  note. 

3 Monuments  of  Nineveh,  2nd  Series, 
PI.  32.  The  slab  itself  is  in  the  British 
Museum. 

4 Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  130,  268, 
&c. 


5 Supra,  p.  520. 

6 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive,  vol  ii. 
Pis.  108,  110,  and  111;  Layard,  Monu- 
ments, 2nd  Series,  PI.  32.  The  hare  is 
always  carried  by  the  hind  legs,  exactly 
as  we  carry  it  See  the  representation 
on  p.  226  of  this  volume. 


Chap.  YII. 


HARE-HUNTING. 


523 


sionally  killed  the  hare  and  the  gazelle  seems  to  have  been  the 
partridge ; and  this  game  they  had  to  bring  down  when  upon 
the  wing.  We  see  the  sportsmen  in  the  sculptures  aiming  their 
arrows  at  the  birds  as  they  mount  into 
the  air,  and  in  one  instance  we  observe 
one  of  the  birds  in  the  act  of  falling 
to  the  ground,  transfixed  by  a well- 
aimed  shaft.7  Such  skill  is  not  un- 
common among  savage  hunting  tribes, 
whose  existence  depends  on  the  dex- 
terity with  which  they  employ  their 
weapons ; but  it  is  rarely  that  a people 
which  has  passed  out  of  this  stage  and 
hunts  for  sport  rather  than  subsistence, 
retains  its  old  expertness. 

Hunting  the  hare  with  dogs  was  pro- 
bably not  very  common,  as  it  is  only  in 
a single  instance  that  the  Assyrian  re- 
mains exhibit  a trace  of  it.  On  one  of  the  bronze  dishes  dis- 
covered by  Mr.  Layard  at  Nimrud  may  be  seen8  a series  of 
alternate  dogs  and  hares,  which  shows  that  coursing  was  not 
unknown  to  the  Assyrians.  The  dog  is  of  a kind  not  seen 
elsewhere  in  the  remains  of  Assyrian  art.  The  head  bears  a 
resemblance  to  that  of  the  wolf ; but  the  form  generally  is  that 


Sportsman  shooting 
(Khorsabad). 


Greyhound  and  hare,  from  a bronze  bowl  (Nimrud), 

of  a coarse  greyhound,  the  legs  and  neck  long,  the  body  slim, 
and  the  tail  curled  at  the  end ; offering  thus  a strong  contrast 
to  the  ordinary  Assyrian  hound,  which  has  been  already  repre- 
sented more  than  once.9 


7 Botta,  PI.  111.  This  bird  has  been  [ representation  of  it  is  given  by  Mr.  Layard 

already  figured.  (See  p.  228.)  in  his  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI.  64. 

8 The  dish  is  in  the  British  Museum.  A [ 9 Supra,  pp.  510,  516,  517,  and  518. 


524 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YU. 


Nets  may  sometimes  have  been  employed  for  the  capture  of 
small  game,  such  as  hares  and  rabbits,  since  we  occasionally  see 
beaters  or  other  attendants  carrying  upon  poles,  which  they  hold 
over  their  shoulders,  nets  of  dimensions  far  too  small  for  them 
to  have  been  used  in  the  deer-hunts,  with  balls  of  string  and 
pegs  wherewith  to  extend  them.  The  nets  in  this  case  are 


Nets,  pegs,  and  balls  of  string  (Koyunjik). 


squared  at  the  ends,  and  seem  to  have  been  about  eight  or 
nine  feet  long,  and  less  than  a foot  in  height.  They  have 
large  meshes,  and,  like  the  deer-nets,  are  bordered  both  at  top 
and  bottom  with  a strong  cord,  to  which  the  net-work  is  attached. 
Like  the  classical  ivoSia,  they  were  probably  placed  across  the 
runs  of  the  animals,  which,  being  baffled  by  them  and  turned 
from  their  accustomed  tracks,  would  grow  bewildered  and  fall 
an  easy  prey  to  the  hunters.  Or,  possibly,  several  of  them  may 
have  been  joined  together,  and  a considerable  space  may  then 
have  been  enclosed,  within  which  the  game  may  have  been 
driven  by  the  beaters. 

The  chase  of  these  three  weak  and  timid  animals,  the  gazelle, 
the  hare,  and  the  partridge,  was  not  regarded  as  worthy  of  the 
monarch.  When  the  king  is  represented  as  present,  he  takes 


Chap.  VII. 


FISHING. 


525 


no  part  in  it,  but  merely  drives  in  bis  chariot  through  the  woods 
where  the  sportsmen  are  amusing  themselves.1  Persons,  how- 
ever, of  a good  position,  as  appears  from  their  dress  and  the 
number  of  their  attendants,  indulged  in  the  sport,  more  espe- 
cially eunuchs,  who  were  probably  those  of  the  royal  house- 
hold. It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  special  object  was  to  supply 
the  royal  table  with  game.2 

The  Assyrians  do  not  seem  to  have  had  much  skill  as  fisher- 
men. They  were  unacquainted  with  the  rod,  and  fished  by 


No.  I.  Man  fishing  (Nimrud). 


means  of  a simple  line  thrown  into  the  water,  one  end  of  which 
was  held  in  the  hand.  No  float  was  used,  and  the  bait  must 
consequently  have  sunk  to  the  bottom,  unless  prevented  from 
so  doing  by  the  force  of  the  stream.  This  method  of  fishing 


1 Botta,  Pis.  108  to  114.  These  sculp- 
tures were  all  in  one  room,  and  form 
a series  from  which  two  slabs  only  are 
missing. 

2 Hares  and  partridges  were  among 
the  delicacies  with  which  Sennacherib’s 


servants  were  in  the  habit  of  furnishing 
his  table,  as  we  may  gather  from  the 
procession  of  attendants  represented  at 
Koyunjik  in  the  inclined  passage.  (See 
Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  P1.9,  and 
compare  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  338.) 


5 26 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chai>.  TIL 


was  likewise  known  and  practised  in  Egypt,3  where,  however, 
it  was  far  more  common  to  angle  with  a rod.4  Though  Assyrian 
fish-hooks  have  not  been  found,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  that 
invention  was  one  with  which  they  were  acquainted,  as  were 
both  the  Egyptians 5 and  the  early  Chaldaeans.6 

Fishing  was  carried  on  both  in  rivers  and  in  stews  or  ponds. 
The  angler  sometimes  stood  or  squatted  upon  the  bank;  at 


other  times,  not  content  with  commanding  the  mere  edge  of 
the  water,  he  plunged  in,  and  is  seen  mid-stream,  astride  upon 
an  inflated  skin,  quietly  pursuing  his  avocation.  Occasionally 
he  improved  his  position  by  mounting  upon  a raft,  and,  seated 
at  the  stern,  with  his  back  to  the  rower,  threw  out  his  line  and 


3 Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  1st  Series,  vol.  iii.  p.  53,  PI.  342. 

4 Ibid.  pp.  52-54.  5 Ibid.  p.  54.  6 See  above,  p.  99. 


Chap.  VII. 


BEAK  AND  OSTRICH  HUNTING. 


527 


drew  the  fish  from  the  water.7  Now  and  then  the  fisherman 
was  provided  with  a plaited  basket,  made  of  rushes  or  flags, 
which  was  fastened  round  his  neck  with  a string,  and  hung  at 
his  back,  ready  to  receive  the  produce  of  his  exertions. 

It  does  not  appear  that  angling  w7as  practised  by  the  Assy- 
rians in  the  way  that  the  monuments  show  it  to  have  been 
practised  in  Egypt,  as  an  amusement  of  the  rich.8  The  fisher- 
men are  always  poorly  clothed,  and  seem  to  have  belonged  to 
the  class  which  worked  for  its  living.  It  is  remarkable  that  we 


Man  fishing,  seated  on  skin  (Koyunjik). 


do  not  anywhere  in- the  sculptures  see  nets  used  for  fishing; 
but  perhaps  we  ought  not  to  conclude  from  this  that  they  were 
never  so  employed  in  Assyria.9  The  Assyrian  sculptors  repre- 
sented only  occasionally  the  scenes  of  common  everyday  life ; 
and  we  are  seldom  justified  in  drawing  a negative  conclusion  as 
to  the  peaceful  habits  of  the  people  on  any  point  from  the  mere 
fact  that  the  bas-reliefs  contain  no  positive  evidence  on  the 
subject. 

A few  other  animals  were  probably,  but  not  certainly,  chased 
by  the  Assyrians,  as  especially  the  ostrich  and  the  bear.  The 
gigantic  bird,  which  remained  in  Mesopotamia  as  late  as  the 


7 See  the  woodcut  in  Mr.  Layard’s 
Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  231. 

8 Wilkinson,  p.  52,  PI.  341.  Com- 
pare his  remarks,  pp.  53  and  54. 

9 The  use  of  nets  for  fishing  seems  to 
have  been  a very  early  invention.  So- 


phocles joins  it  with  ship-building, 
ploughing,  trap-making,  and  horse- 
breaking.  ( Antig . 347.)  Solomon  cer- 
tainly knew  of  the  practice  (Eccl.  ix. 
12),  as  did  Homer  ( Odyss.  xxii.  384-386). 
It  was  of  great  antiquity  in  Egypt. 


528 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Bear  standing,  from  a bronze  bowl 
(Nimrud). 


time  of  Xenophon,10  was  well  known  to  the  Assyrian  artists, 
who  could  scarcely  have  represented  it  with  so  much  success,1 

unless  its  habits  had  been  ob- 
served and  described  by  hunters.2 
The  bear  is  much  less  frequent 
upon  the  remains  than  the  os- 
trich ; but  its  occurrence  and  the 
truthfulness  of  its  delineation 
where  it  occurs,  indicate  a fami- 
liarity which  may  no  doubt  be 
due  to  other  causes,  but  is  pro- 
bably traceable  to  the  intimate 
knowledge  acquired  by  those 
who  hunted  it. 

Of  the  other  amusements  and  occupations  of  the  Assyrians 
our  knowledge  is  comparatively  scanty ; but  some  pages  may 
be  here  devoted  to  their  music,  their  navigation,  their  com- 
merce, and  their  agriculture.  On  the  first  and  second  of  these 
a good  deal  of  light  is  thrown  by  the  monuments,  while  some 
interesting  facts  with  respect  to  the  third  and  fourth  may 
be  gathered  both  from  this  source  and  also  from  ancient 
writers. 

That  the  Babylonians,  the  neighbours  of  the  Assyrians,  and, 
in  a certain  sense,  the  inheritors  of  their  empire,  had  a passion 
for  music,  and  delighted  in  a great  variety  of  musical  instru- 
ments, has  long  been  known  and  admitted.  The  repeated  men- 
tion by  Daniel,  in  his  third  chapter,  of  the  “ cornet,  flute,  harp, 
sackbut,  psaltery,  dulcimer,  and  all  kinds  of  music  ” 3 — or,  at 
any  rate,  of  a number  of  instruments  for  which  those  terms  were 
once  thought  the  best  English  equivalents — has  familiarised  us 
with  the  fact,  that  in  Babylonia,  as  early  as  the  sixth  century 
B.C.,  musical  instruments  of  many  different  kinds  were  in  use. 
It  is  also  apparent  from  the  Book  of  Psalms,  that  a variety  of 
instruments  were  employed  by  the  Jews.4  And  we  know  that  in 


10  Xen.  Anab.  i.  5,  § 2. 

1 See  the  woodcuts  on  p«  228. 

2 The  chase  of  the  ostrich  seems  to  be 
mentioned  in  the  inscriptions  of  Asshur- 


izir-pal.  See  below,  ch.  ix. 

3 Verses  5,  7,  10,  and  15. 

4 See  especially  Ps.  cl.,  where  the 
trumpet,  psaltery,  harp,  timbrel,  pipe(? 


Chap.  VII. 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


529 


Egypt  as  many  as  thirteen  or  fourteen  different  kinds  were 
common.5  In  Assyria,  if  there  was  not  so  much  variety  as  this, 
there  were  at  any  rate  eight  or  nine  quite  different  sorts,  some 
stringed,  some  wind,  some  merely  instruments  of  percussion. 
In  the  early  sculptures,  indeed,  only  two  or  three  musical 
instruments  are  represented.  One  is  a kind  of  harp,  held 
between  the  left  arm  and  the  side,  and  played  with  one  hand 
by  means  of  a quill  or  plectrum.  Another  is  a lyre,  played  by 
the  hand;  while  a third 
is  apparently  a cymbal. 

But  in  the  later  times  we 
see — besides  these  instru- 
ments— a harp  of  a differ- 
ent make  played  with  both 
hands,  two  or  three  kinds 
of  lyre,  the  double  pipe, 
the  guitar  or  cithern,  the 
tambourine,  a nameless 
instrument,  and  more  than 
one  kind  of  drum. 

The  harp  of  the  early 
ages  was  a triangular  in- 
strument, consisting  of  a 
horizontal  board  which 
seems  to  have  been  about 
three  feet  in  length,  an 
upright  bar  inserted  into 
one  end  of  the  board,  com- 
monly surmounted  by  an 
imitation  of  the  human 
hand,  and  a number  of  . . , , , 

. Ancient  Assyrian  harp  and  harper  (Nimrud). 

strings  which  crossed  dia- 
gonally from  the  board  to  the  bar,  and,  passing  through  the 


organ  (?),  and  cymbal  are  all  mentioned 
together.  Compare  Ps.  xxxiii.  2 ; xcii. 
3 ; xcviii.  5,  6,  &c. 

5 Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , 1st 
Series,  vol.  ii.  pp.  253-327.  The  instru- 
ments enumerated  are  the  darabooka 

VOL.  I. 


drum,  cymbals,  cylindrical  maces,  the 
trumpet,  the  long  drum,  the  harp,  the 
lyre,  the  guitar,  the  flute,  the  single  and 
double  pipe,  the  tambourine,  and  the 
sistrum. 

2 M 


530 


THE  SECOND  MONABCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


latter,  hung  down  some  way,  terminating  in  tassels  of  no  great 
size.  The  strings  were  eight,  nine,  or  ten  in  number,  and  (appa- 
rently) were  made  fast  to  the  board,  but  could  be  tightened  or 
relaxed  by  means  of  a row  of  pegs  inserted  into  the  upright  bar, 
round  which  the  strings  were  probably  wound.  No  difference  is 


Later  Assyrian  harps  and  harpers  (KoyunjikJ. 


apparent  in  the  thickness  of  the  strings;  and  it  would  seem 
therefore  that  variety  of  tone  was  produced  solely  by  difference  of 
length.  It  is  thought  that  this  instrument  must  have  been  sus- 
pended round  the  player’s  neck.6  It  was  carried  at  the  left  side, 


6 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii.  p.  412.  The  conjecture  is  probable, 
though  no  means  of  suspension  are  seen  on  the  sculptures. 


Chap.  VII. 


HARPS  AND  LYRES. 


531 


and  was  played  (as  already  observed)  with  a quill  or  plectrum, 
held  in  the  right  hand,  while  the  left  hand  seems  to  have  been 
employed  in  pressing  the  strings  so  as  to  modify  the  tone,  or 
stop  the  vibrations,  of  the  notes.  The  performers  on  this  kind 
of  harp,  and  indeed  all  other  Assyrian  musicians,  are  universally 
represented  as  standing  while  they  play. 

The  harp  of  later  times  was  constructed,  held,  and  played 
differently.  It  was  still  triangular,7  or  nearly  so ; but  the  frame 
now  consisted  of  a rounded  and  evidently  hollow1  sounding- 
board,  to  which  the  strings  were  attached  with  the  help  of  pegs; 
and  a plain  bar  whereto  they  were  made  fast  below,  and  from 
which  their  ends  depended  like  a fringe.  The  number  of  strings 
was  greater  than  in  the  earlier  harp,  being  sometimes  as  many 
as  seventeen.  The  instrument  was  carried  in  such  a way  that 
the  strings  wrere  perpendicular  and  the  bar  horizontal,  while  the 
sounding-board  projected  forwards  at  an  angle  above  the  player’s 
head.  It  was  played  by  the  naked  hand  without  a plectrum  ; 
and  both  hands  seem  to  have  found  their  employment  in  pulling 
the  strings. 

Three  varieties  of  the  lyre  are  seen  in  the  Assyrian  sculptures. 
One  of  them  is  triangular,  or  nearly  so, 
and  has  only  four  strings,  which,  being 
carried  from  one  side  of  the  triangle  to 
the  other,  parallel  to  the  base,  are  neces- 
sarily of  very  unequal  length.  Its  frame 
is  apparently  of  wood,  very  simple,  and 
entirely  devoid  of  ornament.  This  sort 
of  lyre  has  been  found  only  in  the  latest  Triangular  lyre  (Koyunjik). 
sculptures.2 

Another  variety  nearly  resembles  in  its  general  shape  the 


7 The  Egyptians  had  a triangular 
harp  (Wilkinson,  p.  280),  which  is  not 
unlike  the  Assyrian.  And  St.  Jerome 
says  that  the  Hebrew  harp  ("liU3)  re- 
sembled the  Greek  delta , which  is  an 
argument  that  it  also  was  of  this  shape. 

1 The  hoard  is  commonly  pierced  with 
two  or  more  holes,  like  the  sounding- 
board  of  a guitar. 


2 The  above  representation  is  from  a 
slab  discovered  by  Mr.  Loftus  in  the 
palace  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  the  son  of 
Esar-haddon.  It  is  the  only  instance 
of  a triangular  lyre  in  the  sculptures, 
unless  the  lyres  of  the  so-called  Jewish 
captives  in  the  British  Museum  are 
intended  to  be  triangular,  which  is  un- 
j certain.  See  below,  p.  540. 

2 M 2 


532 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


lyre  of  the  Egyptians.3  It  has  a large  square  bottom  or  sound- 
ing-board,4 which  is  held,  like  the  Egyptian,  under  the  left 

elbow,  two  straight  arms  only 
slightly  diverging,  and  a plain 
cross-bar  at  top.  The  number  of 
strings  visible  in  the  least  imper- 
fect representation  is  eight ; but, 
judging  by  the  width  of  the  in- 
strument, we  may  fairly  assume 
that  the  full  complement  was  nine 
or  ten.  The  strings  run  from  the 
cross-bar  to  the  sounding-board, 
and  must  have  been  of  a uniform 
length.  This  lyre  was  played 
by  both  hands,  and  for  greater 
security  was  attached  by  a band 
passing  round  the  player’s  neck. 

The  third  sort  of  lyre  was 
larger  than  either  of  the  others, 
and  considerably  more  elaborate. 
It  had  probably  a sounding-board 
at  bottom,  like  the  lyre  just  de- 
scribed, though  this,  being  carried 
under  the  left  elbow,  is  concealed 

Lyre  with  ten  strings  (Khorsabad).  in  the  representations.  Hence 

there  branched  out  two  curved 
arms,  more  or  less  ornamented,  which  were  of  very  unequal 
length ; and  these  were  joined  together  by  a cross-bar,  also 
curved,  and  projecting  considerably  beyond  the  end  of  the 
longer  of  the  two  arms.  Owing  to  the  inequality  of  the  arms, 
the  cross-bar  sloped  at  an  angle  to  the  base,  and  the  strings, 
which  passed  from  the  one  to  the  other,  consequently  differed 
in  length.  The  number  of  the  strings  in  this  lyre  seems  to  have 
been  either  five  or  seven. 


3 Wilkinson,  vol.  ii.  p.  291,  Woodcut 
No.  217. 

4 In  some  of  the  classical  lyres  the 
two  arms  were  joined  at  the  base,  and 


there  was  no  tortoise  or  other  sounding- 
board  below  them.  (Bianchini,  De  trib. 
gen.  instrument.  Tab.  iv.) 


Chap.  VII. 


GUITAR  AND  DOUBLE  PIPE. 


533 


The  Assyrian  guitar  is  remarkable  for  the  small  size  of  the 
hollow  body  or  sounding- 
board,  and  the  great  propor- 
tionate length  of  the  neck 
or  handle.  There  is  nothing 
to  show  what  was  the  number 
of  the  strings,  nor  whether 
they  were  stretched  by  pegs 
and  elevated  by  means  of  a 
bridge.  Both  hands  seem  to 
be  employed  in  playing  the 
instrument,  which  is  held 
across  the  chest  in  a sloping 
direction,  and  was  probably 
kept  in  place  by  a riband  or 
strap  passed  round  the  back.5 

It  is  curious  that  in  the 
Assyrian  remains,  while  the 
double  pipe  is  common,  we 
find  no  instance  at  all  either 
of  the  flute  or  of  the  single 
pipe.  All  three  were  em- 
ployed in  Egypt,  and  occur 
on  the  monuments  of  that 
country  frequently  ; 6 and 
though  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  the  double  pipe 
was  more  common  than  the 
single  one,  yet  the  single 
pipe  was  well  known,  and 
its  employment  was  not  un- 
usual. The  Greeks  regarded 
the  pipe  as  altogether  Asia- 
tic, and  ascribed  its  inven- 
tion to  Marsyas  the  Phry- 
gian,7 Or  to  Olympus,  his  Lyres>  with  five  and  seven  strings  (Koyunjik). 

5 Such  a strap  is  occasionally  seen  in  6 "Wilkinson,  pp.  307-312;  and  ccm- 
the  Egyptian  representations.  (Wilkin-  pare  pp.  232-237. 
s6n,  p.  302,  Woodcut  No.  223.)  7 Athen.  Deipnosoph.  iv.  25. 


534 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


disciple.8  We  may  conclude  from  tliis  that  they  at  any  rate 
learnt  the  invention  from  Asia ; and  in  their  decided  preference 
of  the  double  over  the  single  pipe  we  may  not  improbably 
have  a trace  of  the  influence  which  Assyria  exercised  over 
Asiatic,  and  thus  even  over  Greek,  music. 


The  Assyrian  double  pipe  was  short,  probably  not  exceeding 
ten  or  twelve  inches  in  length.9  It  is  uncertain  whether  it  was 
really  a single  instrument  consisting  of  two  tubes  united  by  a 
common  mouth-piece,  or  whether  it  was  not  composed  of  two 
quite  separate  pipes,  as  was  the  case  with  the  double  pipes  of  the 
Greeks  and  Eomans. 


9 Plutarch.  Be  Musica , p.  1135,  F. 

9 The  Egyptian  pipes  seem  to  have 
varied  from  seven  to  fifteen  or  eighteen 
inches.  (Wilkinson,  p.  308.)  The  clas- 


sical were  probably  even  longer.  In 
Phoenicia  a very  short  pipe  was  used, 
which  was  called  gingrus.  (Athen.  Beipn. 
iv.  p.  174,  F.) 


TAMBOURINES  AND  CYMBALS. 


535 


Chap.  VII. 


The  two  pipes  constituting  a pair  seem  in  Assyria  to  have 
been  always  of  the  same  length,  not,  like  the  Eoman  “ right  ” 
and  “ left  pipes,”  of  unequal  length,  and  so  of  different  pitches.10 
They  were  held  and  played,  like  the  classical,  one  with  either 
hand  of  the  performer.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  they 
were  in  reality  quite  straight,  though  sometimes  they  have  been 
awkwardly  represented  as  crooked  by  the  artist. 


Tambourine  player,  and  other  musicians  (Koyunjik). 


The  tambourine  of  the  Assyrians  was  round,  like  that  in  com- 
mon use  at  the  present  day,  not  square,  like  the  ordinary 
Egyptian.11  It  seems  to  have  consisted  simply  of  a skin 
stretched  on  a circular  frame,  and  to  have  been  destitute  alto- 
gether of  the  metal  rings  or  balls  which  produce  the  jingling 
sound  of  the  modern  instrument.  It  was  held  at  bottom  by  the 
left  hand  in  a perpendicular  position,  and  was  struck  at  the  side 
with  the  fingers  of  the  right. 


10  See  Pliny,  H.  N.  xvi.  36. 


11  Wilkinson,  pp.  235,  240,  and  329. 


536  THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  YII. 

Assyrian  cymbals  closely  resembled  those  in  common  use 
throughout  the  East  at  the  present  day.12  They  consisted  of 

two  hemispheres  of  metal,  pro- 
bably of  bronze,  running  off  to 
a point,  which  was  elongated 
into  a bar  or  handle.  The 
player  grasped  a cymbal  in  each 
hand,  and  either  clashed  them 
together  horizontally,  or  else, 
holding  one  cup-wise  in  his  left, 
brought  the  other  down  upon  it 
perpendicularly  with  his  right. 

Two  drums  are  represented 
on  the  Assyrian  sculptures.  One 
is  a small  instrument  resem- 
bling the  tubbul  now  frequently 
used  by  Eastern  dancing-girls.13 
The  other  is  of  larger  size,  like 
the  tubbul  at  top,  but  descending  gradually  in  the  shape  of  an 
inverted  cone,  and  terminating  almost  in  a point  at  bottom. 
Both  were  carried  in  front,  against  the  stomach  of  the  player, 
attached,  apparently,  to  his  girdle;  and  both  were  played  in 
the  same  w7ay,  namely,  with  the  fingers  of  the  open  hands  on 
the  top.14 

A few  instruments  carried  by  musicians  are  of  an  anomalous 
appearance,  and  do  not  admit  of  identification  with  any  known 
species.  One,  which  is  borne  by  a musician  in  a processional 
scene  belonging  to  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  resembles  in  shape 
a bag  turned  upside  down.  By  the  manner  in  which  it  is  held, 
we  may  conjecture  that  it  was  a sort  of  rattle — a hollow  square 
box  of  wood  or  metal,  containing  stones  or  other  hard  substances 
which  produced  a jingling  noise  when  shaken.  But  the  purpose 


Eunuch  playing  on  the  cymbals 
(Koyunjik). 


12  They  are  probably  identical  with 
the  “high-sounding  cymbals” 

of  Scripture.  The  “loud  cym- 
bals ” (VOW  were  merely  cas- 


tanets 

13  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p. 
455. 

14  For  representations  of  these  drums, 
see  opposite. 


Chap.  VII. 


DRUMS  AND  DULCIMERS. 


537 


of  the  semicircular  bow  which  hangs  from  the  box  is  difficult  to 
explain,  unless  we  suppose  that  it  was  merely  a handle  by  which 
to  carry  the  instrument  when  not  in  use.  Rattles  of  different 
kinds  are  found  among  the  musical  instruments  of  Egypt ; 1 and 
one  of  them  consists  of  a box  with  a long  handle  attached  to  it. 


Assyrian  tubbuls,  or  drums  (Koyunjik). 

The  jingling  noise  produced  by  such  instruments  may  have  cor- 
responded to  the  sound  now  emitted  by  the  side  rings  of  the 
tambourine. 

Another  curious-looking  instrument  occurs  in  a proces- 
sional scene  of  the  time  of  Asshur-bani-pal,  which  has  been 
compared  to  the  modern  santour,  a sort  of  dulcimer.2  It  con- 
sisted (apparently)  of  a number  of  strings,  certainly  not  fewer 


1 Wilkinson,  vol.  ii.  pp.  238,  322-327,  &c.  2 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  454. 


538  THE  SECOND  MONAECHY.  Chap.  VII. 

than  ten,  stretched  over  a hollow  case  or  sounding-board.  The 

strings  with  a small  bar 
or  hammer  held  in  his 
right  hand,  while,  at  the 
same  time  he  made  some 
use  of  his  left  hand  in 
pressing  them  so  as  to 
produce  the  right  note.  It 
is  clear  that  this  instru- 
ment must  have  been  sus- 
pended round  the  neck, 
though  the  Assyrian  artist 
has  omitted  to  represent 
the  belt  which  kept  it  in 
place. 

In  addition  to  all  these 
various  instruments,  it  is 
possible  that  the  Assyri- 
ans may  have  made  use 
of  a sort  of  horn.  An 
object  is  represented  on 
a slab  of  Sennacherib’s 
which  is  certainly  either 
a horn  or  a speaking- 
trumpet.  It  is  carried  by  one  of  the  supervisors  of  the  works 
in  a scene  representing  the  conveyance  of  a colossal  bull  to 
its  destination.  In  shape  it  no  doubt  resembles  the  modern 
speaking-trumpet,  but  it  is  almost  equally  near  to  the  tuba  or 
military  trumpet  of  the  Greeks  and  Eomans.  This  will  ap- 
pear sufficiently  on  a comparison  of  the  two  representations 
opposite,  one  of  which  is  taken  from  Mr.  Layard’s  representation 
of  Sennacherib’s  slab,3  while  the  other  is  from  a ’sculpture  on 
the  column  of  Trajan.  As  we  have  no  mention  of  the  speaking- 
trumpet  in  any  ancient  writer,  as  the  shape  of  the  object  under 
consideration  is  that  of  a known  ancient  instrument  of  music, 


musician  seems  to  have  struck  the 


3 See  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 2nd  Series,  PI.  15.  The  original  slab  is  in  the 
British  Museum,  but  in  so  bad  a condition  that  the  trumpet  is  now  scarcely  visible. 


Chap.  VII. 


BANDS  OF  MUSIC. 


539 


and  as  an  ordinary  horn  would  have  been  of  great  use  in  giving 
signals  to  workmen  engaged  as  the  labourers  are  upon  the 
sculpture,  it  seems  best  to 
regard  the  object  in  ques- 
tion as  such  a horn — an 
instrument  of  great  power, 
but  of  little  compass — more 
suitable  therefore  for  sig- 
nal-giving than  for  con- 
certs.4 

Passing  now  from  the  in- 
struments of  the  Assyrians 
to  the  general  features  and 
character  of  their  music, 
we  may  observe,  in  the  first 
place,  that  while  it  is  fair  to  suppose  them  acquainted  with 
each  form  of  the  triple  symphony,5  there  is  only  evidence  that 
they  knew  of  two  forms  out  of  the  three — viz.  the  harmony 
of  instruments,  and  that  of  instruments  and  voices  in  com- 
bination. Of  these  two  they  seem  greatly  to  have  preferred 
the  concert  of  instruments  without  voices ; indeed,  one  instance 
alone  shows  that  they  were  not  wholly  ignorant  of  the  more 
complex  harmony.6  Even  this  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  they 
themselves  practised  it;  for  the  singers  and  musicians  repre- 
sented as  uniting  their  efforts  are  not  Assyrians,  but  Susianians, 
who  come  out  to  greet  their  conquerors,  and  do  honour  to  the 
new  sovereign  who  has  been  imposed  on  them,  with  singing, 
playing,  and  dancing. 

Assyrian  bands  were  variously  composed.  The  simplest 
consisted  of  two  harpers.  A band  of  this  limited  number  seems 


No.  I.  Roman  trumpet  (Column  of  Trajan). 


No.  II.  Assyrian  trumpet  (Layard). 


No.  III.  Portion  of  an  Assyrian  trumpet. 


4 The  trumpet  was  employed  by  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  and  also  by  the 
Jews,  chiefly  for  signals.  (See  Diet,  of 
Gr.  and  Horn.  Antiq.  ad  voc.  TUBA,  and 
Biblical  Dictionary , ad  voc.  CORNET.) 

5 See  Rollin,  Ancient  History , vol.  ii. 
p.  254. 

6 See  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  455.  It 
may  perhaps  be  thought  that  the  scene 
where  the  king  is  represented  as  pouring 


a libation  oyer  four  dead  lions  (supra, 
p.  515;  furnishes  a second  instance  of 
the  combination  of  vocal  with  instru- 
mental music.  But  a comparison  of 
that  scene  with  parallel  representations 
on  a larger  scale  in  the  Nimrud  series 
convinces  me  that  it  is  merely  by  a 
neglect  of  the  artist  that  the  two  musi- 
cians are  given  only  one  harp. 


540 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


to  have  been  an  established  part  of  the  religious  creemonial 
on  the  return  of  the  monarch  from  the  chase,  when  a libation 
was  poured  over  the  dead  game.  The  instrument  in  use  on 
these  occasions  was  the  antique  harp,  which  was  played,  not 
with  the  hand,  but  with  the  plectrum.  A similar  band  appears 


on  one  occasion  in  a triumphal  return  from  a military  expedition 
belonging  to  the  time  of  Sennacherib.7 

In  several  instances  we  find  bands  of  three  musicians.  In 
one  case  all  three  play  the  lyre.  The  musicians  here  are  cer- 
tainly captives,  whom  the  Assyrians  have  borne  off  from  their 


7 Layard,  Monuments  of  Nineveh , 1st  Series,  PI.  73. 


Chap.  VII. 


BANDS  OF  MUSIC. 


541 


own  country.  It  has  been  thought  that  their  physiognomy  is 
Jewish,8  and  that  the  lyre  which  they  bear  in  their  hands  may 
represent  that  kind  of  “ harp  ” which  the  children  of  the  later 
Captivity  hung  up  upon  the  willows  when  they  wept  by  the 
rivers  of  Babylon.9  There  are  no  sufficient  grounds,  however, 
for  this  identification.  The  lyre  may  be  pronounced  foreign, 
since  it  is  unlike  any  other  specimen;  but  its  ornamentation 
with  an  animal  head  is  sufficient  to  show  that  it  is  not  Jewish.10 
And  the  Jewish  hinnor  was  rather  a harp  than  a lyre,  and 
had  certainly  more  than  four  strings.11  Still,  the  employment 
of  captives  as  musicians  is  interesting,  though  we  cannot  say 
that  the  captives  are  Jews.  It  shows  us  that  the  Assyrians,  like 
the  later  Babylonians,12  were  in  the  habit  of  “ requiring”  music 
from  their  prisoners,  who,  when  transported  into  a “ strange  land,” 
had  to  entertain  their  masters  with  their  native  melodies. 

Another  band  of  three  exhibits  to  us  a harper,  a player  on 
the  lyre,  and  a player  on  the  double  pipe.13  A third  shows  a 
harper,  a player  on  the  lyre,  and  a musician  whose  instrument 
is  uncertain.  In  this  latter  case  it  is  quite  possible  that  there 
may  originally  have  been  more  musicians  than  three,  for  the 
sculpture  is  imperfect,  terminating  in  the  middle  of  a figure.14 

Bands  of  four  performers  are  about  as  common  as  bands  of 
three.  On  an  obelisk  belonging  to  the  time  of  Asshur-izir-pal 
we  see  a band  composed  of  two  cymbal-players  and  two  per- 
formers on  the  lyre.  A slab  of  Sennacherib’s  exhibits  four 
harpers  arranged  in  two  pairs,  all  playing  with  the  plectrum 
on  the  antique  harp.1  Another  of  the  same  date,  which  is  in- 

tionary,  vol.  i.  p.  758.)  Hebrew  coins, 
however,  represent  lyres  with  as  few 
strings  as  three. 

12  Ps.  cxxxvii.  3,  4. 

13  I am  acquainted  with  this  sculpture 
only  through  one  of  Mr.  Boutcher's  ad- 
mirable drawings  in  the  British  Museum 
Collection. 

14  This  is  also  the  case  in  a sculpture, 
where  two  musicians  play  the  lyre,  and 
a third  had  probably  the  same  instru- 
ment. (See  Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , 
vol.  i.  PI.  67.) 

1 Both  this  and  the  obelisk  sculpture 
are  now  in  the  British  Museum. 


8 The  authorities  at  our  National  Col- 
lection at  one  time  entitled  the  bas- 
relief  in  question  “ Jewish  captives 
playing  on  lyres.” 

9 Ps.  cxxxvii.  1,  2. 

10  It  is  well  known  that  the  Jews 
regard  the  second  com- 
mandment as  forbid- 
ding all  artistic  re- 
presentation of  natural 
objects. 

11  The  authorities 
vary  between  ten 
T __  _ strings  and  forty-seven. 
yle“"  (Smiths  Biblical  Vic- 


542 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


m 

S3 

cS 


'a 

S3 

a 


O 

TS 


complete,  shows  us  a tambourine- 
player,  a cymbal-player,  a player 
on  the  nondescript  instrument 
which  has  been  called  a sort  of 
rattle,  and  another  whose  instru- 
ment cannot  be  distinguished.  In 
a sculpture  of  a later  period,  which 
is  represented  above,2  we  see  a 
band  of  four,  composed  of  a tam- 
bourine-player, two  players  on  two 
different  sorts  of  lyres,  and  a cym- 
bal-player. 

It  is  not  often  that  we  find 
representations  of  bands  contain- 
ing more  than  four  performers. 
On  the  sculptures  hitherto  dis- 
covered there  seem  to  be  only 
three  instances  where  this  num- 
ber was  exceeded.  A bas-relief  of 
Sennacherib’s  showed  five  players, 
of  whom  two  had  tambourines ; 
two,  harps  of  the  antique  pattern  ; 
and  one,  cymbals.3  Another,  be- 
longing to  the  time  of  his  grand- 
son, exhibited  a band  of  seven, 
three  of  whom  played  upon  harps 
of  the  later  fashion,  two  on  the 
double  pipe,  one  on  the  guitar,  and 
one  on  the  long  drum  with  the 
conical  bottom.4  Finally,  we  have 
the  remarkable  scene  represented 
on  this  page,  a work  of  the  same 
date,  where  no  fewer  than  twenty- 

2 Supra,  p.  535. 

3 This  sculpture  is  also  known  to  me  only 
through  Mr.  Boutcher's  representation  of  it. 

4 A portion  of  this  bas-relief,  containing 
two  musicians  only,  is  exhibited  in  the  Mu- 
seum, and  has  been  represented  above,  page 
493.  Mr.  Boutcher’s  drawing,  made  on  the 
spot,  shows  that  there  were  actually  on  the 
relief  as  discovered  at  least  five  other  musi- 
cians. 


Chap.  VII. 


TIME-KEEPERS. 


543 


six  performers  are  seen  uniting  their  efforts.  Of  these  eleven 
are  players  on  instruments,  while  the  remaining  fifteen  are 
vocalists.  The  instruments  consist  of  seven  harps,  two  double 
pipes,  a small  drum  or  tubbul,  and  the  curious  instrument  which 
has  been  compared  to  the  modern  santour.  The  players  are 
all  men,  six  out  of  the  eleven  being  eunuchs.  The  singers  con- 
sist of  six  women  and  nine  children  of  various  ages,  the  latter 
of  whom  seem  to  accompany  their  singing,  as  the  Hebrews  and 
Egyptians  sometimes  did,5  with  clapping  of  the  hands.  Three 
out  of  the  first  four  musicians  are  represented  with  one  leg 
raised,  as  if  dancing  to  the  measure.6 

Bands  in  Assyria  had  sometimes, 
though  not  always,  time-keepers  or 
leaders,  who  took  the  direction  of  the 
performance.  These  were  commonly 
eunuchs,  as  indeed  were  the  greater 
number  of  the  musicians.  They  held 
in  one  hand  a double  rod  or  wand, 
with  which  most  probably  they  made 
their  signals,  and  stood  side  by  side 
facing  the  performers. 

The  Assyrians  seem  to  have  em- 
ployed music  chiefly  for  festive  and 
religious  purposes.  The  favourite  in- 
strument in  the  religious  ceremonies 
was  the  antique  harp,  which  continued 
in  use  as  a sacred  instrument  from  the 
earliest  to  the  latest  times.7  On  festive 
occasions  the  lyre  was  preferred,  or  a 
mixed  band  with  a variety  of  instru- 
ments. In  the  quiet  of  domestic  life 
the  monarch  and  his  sultana  were  en- 
tertained with  concerted  music  played  by  a large  number  of 
performers;  while  in  processions  and  pageants,  whether  of  a 


Time-keepers  (Koyunjik). 


5 Ps.  xlvii.  1 ; Herod,  ii.  60  ; Wilkin- 
son, Ancient  Egyptians , 1st  Series,  vol. 
ii.  p.  326. 

6 See  the  representations  on  pages  530 


and  538. 

7 See  Monuments  of  Nineveh,  1st  Series, 
Pis.  12  and  17,  and  compare  the  wood- 
cut,  supra,  p.  515. 


544 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


civil  or  of  a military  character,  bands  were  also  very  generally 
employed,  consisting  of  two,  three,  four,  five,  or  possibly  more,8 
musicians.  Cymbals,  the  tambourine,  and  the  instrument  which 
has  been  above  regarded  as  a sort  of  rattle,  were  peculiar  to 
these  processional  occasions  : the  harp,  the  lyre,  and  the  double 
pipe  had  likewise  a place  in  them. 

In  actual  war,  it  would  appear  that  music  was  employed  very 
sparingly,  if  at  all,  by  the  Assyrians.  No  musicians  are  ever 
represented  in  the  battle-scenes ; nor  are  the  troops  accom- 
panied by  any  when  upon  the  march.  Musicians  are  only  seen 
conjoined  with  troops  in  one  or  two  marching  processions, 
apparently  of  a triumphal  character.  It  may  consequently  be 
doubted  whether  the  Assyrian  armies,  when  they  went  out  on 
their  expeditions,  were  attended,  like  the  Egyptian  and  Eoman 
armies,9  by  military  bands.  Possibly,  the  musicians  in  the  pro- 
cessional scenes  alluded  to  belong  to  the  court  rather  than  to 
the  camp,  and  merely  take  part  as  civilians  in  a pageant,  wherein 
a share  is  also  assigned  to  the  soldiery. 

In  proceeding,  as  already  proposed,10  to  speak  of  the  naviga- 
tion of  the.  Assyrians,  it  must  be  at  once  premised  that  it  is  not 
as  mariners,  but  only  as  fresh- water  sailors,  that  they  come 
within  the  category  of  navigators  at  all.  Originally  an  inland 
people,  they  had  no  power,  in  the  earlier  ages  of  their  history, 
to  engage  in  any  but  the  secondary  and  inferior  kind  of  navi- 
gation; and  it  would  seem  that,  by  the  time  when  they  suc- 
ceeded in  opening  to  themselves  through  their  conquests  a way 
to  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Indian  Ocean,  their  habits  had 
become  so  fixed  in  this  respect  that  they  no  longer  admitted  of 
change.  There  is  satisfactory  evidence  which  shows  that  they 
left  the  navigation  of  the  two  seas  at  the  two  extremities  of 
their  empire  to  the  subject  nations — the  Phoenicians  and  the 
Babylonians,11  contenting  themselves  with  the  profits  without 


8 The  fragmentary  character  of  the 

sculptures  renders  it  often  doubtful 

whether  the  actual  number  of  the  per- 
formers may  not  have  considerably  ex- 
ceeded the  number  at  present  visible. 

0 Wilkinson,  vol.  ii.  pp.  260,  261  ; 


Liv.  i.  43  ; Sueton.  Vit.  Jul.  § 32  ; Amm. 
Marc.  xxiv.  4 ; &c. 

10  Supra,  p.  528. 

11  The  evidence  is  not  merely  nega- 
tive. It  is  positively  stated  by  Hero- 
dotus that  in  the  time  of  Assyrian 


Chap.  YII. 


NAVIGATION. 


545 


sharing  the  dangers  of  marine  voyages,  while  their  own  atten- 
tion was  concentrated  upon  their  two  great  rivers — the  Tigris 
and  the  Euphrates,  which  formed  the  natural  line  of  communi- 
cation between  the  seas  in  question. 

The  navigation  of  these  streams  was  important  to  the 
Assyrians  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place  it  was  a military 
necessity  that  they  should  be  able,  readily  and  without  delay , 
to  effect  the  passage  of  both  of  them,  and  also  of  their  tribu- 
taries, which  were  frequently  too  deep  to  be  forded.12  Now  from 
very  early  times  it  was  probably  found  tolerably  easy  to  pass 
an  army  over  a great  river  by  swimming,  more  especially  with 
the  aid  of  inflated  skins,  which  would  be  soon  employed  for 
the  purpose.  But  the  materiel  of  the  army — the  provisions,  the 
chariots,  and  the  siege  machines — was  not  so  readily  transported, 
and  indeed  could  only  be  conveyed  across  deep  rivers  by  means 
of  bridges,  rafts,  or  boats.  On  the  great  streams  of  the  Tigris 
and  Euphrates,  with  their  enormous  spring  floods,  no  bridge,  in 
the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  is  possible.13  Bridges  of  boats 
are  still  the  only  ones  that  exist  on  either  river  below  the  point 
at  which  they  issue  from  the  gorges  of  the  mountains.14  And 
these  would  be  comparatively  late  inventions,  long  subsequent 
to  the  employment  of  single  ferry  boats.  Probably  the  earliest 
contrivance  for  transporting  the  chariots,  the  stores,  and  the 
engines  across  a river  was  a raft,  composed  hastily  of  the  trees 
and  bushes  growing  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  stream,  and 
rendered  capable  of  sustaining  a considerable  weight  by  the 
attachment  to  it  of  a number  of  inflated  skins.  A representation 
of  such  a raft,  taken  from  a slab  of  Sennacherib,  has  been 


ascendancy  the  carrying  trade  of  the 
eastern  Mediterranean  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  Phoenicians  (Herod,  i.  1)  ; and 
Isaiah  (xliii.  14)  implies  that  the  Chal- 
daeans  of  his  time  retained  the  trade  of 
the  Persian  Gulf. 

12  Herod,  v.  52 ; and  supra,  pp.  185 
and  188. 

13  If  even  the  Araxes  (Aras)  might 
be  truly  said  in  Virgil’s  time  to  “ abhor 
a bridge  ” (“  pontem  indignatus  Araxes,” 
Virg.  JEn.  viii.  728),  piuch  more  would 

VOL.  I. 


these  two  mightiest  streams  of  Western 
Asia  have  in  the  early  ages  defied  the 
art  of  bridge-building. 

14  The  lowest  bridge  over  the  Tigris 
is  that  at  Diarbekr,  a stone  structure 
of  ten  arches ; the  lowest  on  the  Eu- 
phrates is,  I believe,  that  at  Eghin.  Mr. 
Berrington,  a recent  traveller  in  the 
East,  informs  me  that  there  is  a ruined 
bridge,  which  once  crossed  the  Tigris,  a 
little  below  Jezireh. 

2 N 


546  THE  SECOND  MONARCHY.  Chap.  VIE 

already  given.1 *  Eafts  of  this  kind  are  still  largely  employed 
in  the  navigation  of  the  'Mesopotamian  streams/  and,  being 
extremely  simple  in  their  construction,  may  reasonably  be 
supposed  to  have  been  employed  by  the  Assyrians  from  the 
very  foundation  of  their  empire. 

To  these  rafts  would  naturally  have  succeeded  boats  of  one 
kind  or  another.  As  early  as  the  time  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  (ab. 

B.c.  1120)  we  find  a mention 
of  boats  as  employed  in  the 
passage  of  the  Euphrates.3* 
These  would  probably  be  of 
the  kind  described  by  Hero- 
dotus,4 and  represented  on 
one  of  the  most  ancient  bas- 
reliefs — round  structures,  like 
the  Welsh  coracles,  made  of 
wickerwork  and  covered  with 
skins,  smeared  over  with  a coating  of  bitumen.  Boats  of  this 
construction  were  made  of  a considerable  size.  The  one  above 
represented  contains  a chariot  and  is  navigated  by  two  men. 
In  the  later  sculptures  the  number  of  navigators  is  raised  to 
four,  and  the  boats  carry  a heavy  load  of  stone  or  other  material.5 
The  mode  of  propulsion  is  curious  and  very  unusual.  The 
rowers  sit  at  the  stem  and  stern,  facing  each  other,  and,  while 
those  at  the  stem  pull,  those  at  the  stern  must  have  pushed,  as 
Herodotus  tells  us  that  they  did.6  The  make  of  the  oars  is 
also  singular.  In  the  earlier  sculptures  they  are  short  poles 
terminating  in  a head,  shaped  like  a small  axe  or  hammer;7 


1 See  p.  338. 

Layard,  Nineveh  and!,  its  Remains , 
vol.  ii.  pp . 96-98  ; Nineveh  and  Babylon , 
p.  465 ; Loftus,  Chaldcea  and  Susiana, 

p.  4. 

3  Inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  /.,  pp. 

46,  47.  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  translates  the 

passage — “ The  men  of  their  armies,  who 

had  fled  before  the  face  of  the  valiant 
servants  of  my  lord  Asshur,  crossed 

over  the  Euphrates ; in  boats  covered 


with  bitumen  shins  I crossed  the  Euphrates 
after  them.”  Mr.  Fox  Talbot  renders 
the  last  clause — “I  crossed  the  river 
after  them  in  my  boats  formed  of  skins.” 

4 Herod,  i.  194. 

5 Monuments  of  Nineveh,  2nd  Series, 
PI.  12. 

6 Herod.  1.  s.  c. : 'O  peu  etro)  I'A/cei  to 
ivKr\KTpov,  o 8e  e£«  <&0eet. 

7 Monuments,  1st  Series,  Pis.  15  and 
16.  See  also  the  last  woodcut. 


Chap.  YU. 


BOATS  AND  OAES. 


547 


in  the  later,  below  this  axe-like  appendage,  they  have  a sort 
of  curved  blade,  which  is,  however,  not  solid,  but  perforated, 
so  as  to  form  a mere  framework,  which  seems  to  require 
filling  up. 


Common  oar.  (Time  of  Sennacherib.) 

Besides  these  round  boats,  which  correspond  closely  with  the 
kufas  in  use  upon  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  at  the  present 
day,8  the  Assyrians  employed  for  the  passage  of  rivers,  even  in 
very  early  times,  a vessel  of  a more  scientific  construction.  The 
early  bas-reliefs  exhibit  to  us,  together  with  the  kufa,  a second 
and  much  larger  vessel,  manned  with  a crew  of  seven  men — a 
helmsman  and  six  rowers,  three  upon  either  side9 — and  capable 
of  conveying  across  a broad  stream  two  chariots  at  a time,10  or 
a chariot  and  two  or  three  passengers.  This  vessel  appears  to 
have  been  made  of  planks.  It  was  long,  and  comparatively 
narrow.  It  had  a flattish  bottom,  and  was  rounded  off  towards 
the  stem  and  stern,  much  as  boats  are  rounded  off  towards  the 
bows  at  the  present  day.  It  did  not  possess  either  mast  or  sail, 
but  was  propelled  wholly  by  oars,  which  were  of  the  same  shape 
as  those  used  anciently  by 
the  rowers  in  the  round 
boats.  In  the  steersman’s 

, , f.  Steering  oar.  (Time  of  Asshur-izir-pal.) 

hand  is  seen  an  oar  ol  a 

different  kind.  It  is  much  longer  than  the  rowing  oars,  and 
terminates  in  an  oval  blade,  which  would  have  given  it  consi- 
derable power  in  the  water.  The  helmsman  steered  with  both 
hands ; and  it  seems  that  his  oar  was  lashed  to  an  upright  post 
near  the  stern  of  the  vessel.11 


8 Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition , vol. 
ii.  p.  640 ; Ker  Porter,  Travels,  vol.  ii. 
p.  260  ; Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  ii.  p.  381. 

9 Layard,  Monuments,  1st  Series,  PI. 

15.  Only  three  of  the  rowers  are  visible  ; 

hut  it  is,  I think,  certain  that  there 


must  have  been  three  others  corre- 
sponding to  them  on  the  other  side  of 
the  vessel.  For  a representation  of  this 
kind  of  boat,  see  below,  p.  549,  No.  I. 

19  Ibid.  PI.  16. 

11  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 

vol.  ii.  p.  382. 


2 n 2 


548 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


It  is  evident  that  before  armies  could  look  habitually  to  being 
transported  across  the  Mesopotamian  streams,  wherever  they 
might  happen  to  strike  them  in  their  expeditions,  by  boats  of 
these  two  kinds,  either  ferries  must  have  been  established  at 
convenient  intervals  upon  them,  or  traffic  along  their  courses 
by  means  of  boats  must  have  been  pretty  regular.  An  Assyrian 
army  did  not  carry  its  boats  with  it,  as  a modern  army  does  its 
pontoons.  Boats  were  commonly  found  in  sufficient  numbers 
on  the  streams  themselves  when  an  army  needed  them,  and 
were  impressed,  or  hired,  to  convey  the  troops  across.  And 
thus  we  see  that  the  actual  navigation  of  the  streams  had 
another  object  besides  the  military  one  of  transport  from  bank 
to  bank.  Rivers  are  Nature’s  roads ; and  we  may  be  sure  that 
the  country  had  not  been  long  settled  before  a water  communi- 
cation began  to  be  established  between  towns  upon  the  river- 
courses,  and  commodities  began  to  be  transported  by  means  of 
them.  The  very  position  of  the  chief  towns  upon  the  banks  of 
the  streams  was  probably  connected  with  this  sort  of  transport, 
the  rivers  furnishing  the  means  by  which  large  quantities  of 
building  material  could  be  conveniently  concentrated  at  a 
given  spot,  and  by  which  supplies  could  afterwards  be  regularly 
received  from  a distance.  We  see  in  the  Assyrian  sculptures 
the  conveyance  of  stones,  planks,  &c.,  along  the  rivers,12  as  well 
as  the  passage  of  chariots,  horses,13  and  persons  across  them. 
Rafts  and  round  boats  were  most  commonly  used  for  this  pur- 
pose. When  a mass  of  unusual  size,  as  a huge  paving-stone, 
or  a colossal  bull  or  lion,  had  to  be  moved,  a long,  low,  flat- 
bottomed  boat  was  employed,  which  the  mass  sometimes  more 
than  covered.14  In  this  case,  as  there  was  no  room  for  rowers, 
trackers  were  engaged,  who  dragged  the  vessel  along  by  means 
of  ropes,  which  were  fastened  either  to  the  boat  itself  or  to  its 
burthen. 

During  the  later  period  of  the  monarchy  various  improve- 
ments took  place  in  Assyrian  boat-building.  The  Phoenician 


12  Monuments,  2nd  Series,  Pis.  10,  12, 
and  13. 

13  For  the  transport  of  horses  in  boats, 
see  a woodcut  in  Layard’s  Nineveh  and 


Babylon , p.  232,  and  compare  above, 
p.  229. 

14  Monuments,  2nd  Series,  PI.  10. 


Chap.  VII. 


GALLEYS. 


549 


and  Cyprian  expeditions  of  the  later  kings  made  the  Assyrians 
well  acquainted  with  the  ships  of  first-rate  nautical  nations ; and 
they  seem  to  have  immediately  profited  by  this  acquaintance,  in 
order  to  improve  the  appearance  and  the  quality  of  their  own 
river  boats.  The  clumsy  and  inelegant  long-boat  of  the  earlier 
times  was  replaced,  even  for  ordinary  traffic,  by  a light  and 
graceful  fabric,  which  was  evidently  a copy  from  Phoenician 
models.  Modifications,  which  would  seem  trifling,  if  described, 
changed  the  whole  cha- 
racter of  the  vessels,  in 
which  light  and  grace- 
ful curves  took  the 

place  Of  Straight  lines  No-L  Early  lo„g4*xU  (Ntarud). 

and  angles  only  just 
rounded  off.  The  stem 
and  stern  were  raised 
high  above  the  body 
of  the  boat,  and  were 
shaped  like  fishes’  tails 
or  carved  into  the  heads  No'n-  Eater  long-boat  (Khorsabad). 

of  animals.1  Oars,  shaped  nearly  like  modern  ones,  came  into 
vogue,  and  the  rowers  were  placed  so  as  all  to  look  one  way, 
and  to  pull  instead  of  pushing  with  their  oars.  Finally,  the 
principle  of  the  bireme  was  adopted,  and  river-galleys  were 
constructed  of  such  a size  that  they  had  to  be  manned  by 
thirty  rowers,  who  sat  in  two  tiers  one  above  the  other  at  the 
sides  of  the  galley,  while  the  centre  part,  which  seems  to  have 
been  decked,  was  occupied  by  eight  or  ten  other  persons.2 

In  galleys  of  this  kind  the  naval  architecture  of  the  Assyrians 
seems  to  have  culminated.  They  never,  so  far  as  appears, 
adopted  for  their  boats  the  inventions,  with  which  their  inter- 
course with  Phoenicia  had  rendered  them  perfectly  familiar,3  of 
masts,  and  sails.  This  is  probably  to  be  explained  from  the 


1 For  other  examples  of  the  boats  of 
this  time,  see  pp.  229  and  309. 

2 See  p.  361  for  a representation  of 
such  a hireme. 

3 Masts  and  sails  will  he  found  in 
representations  of  Phoenician  vessels 


(Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  71), 
which  belong  to  the  time  of  Sennacherib. 
Masts  without  sails  appear  in  the  sculp- 
tures of  Sargon.  (Botta,  Monument , 
vol.  i.  Pis.  31  to  35.) 


550 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


extreme  rapidity  of  the  Mesopotamian  rivers,  on  which  sailing 

boats  are  still  un- 
common. The  un- 
failing strength  of 
rowers  was  needed 
in  order  to  meet  and 
stem  the  force  of  the 
currents,  aod  this 
strength  being  pro- 
vided in  abundance, 
it  was  not  thought 
necessary  to  hus- 

Phcenician  bireme  (Koyunjik).  band  it  Or  eke  it 

out  by  the  addition  of  a second  motive  power.  Again,  the  boats, 
being  intended  only  for  peaceful  purposes,  were  unprovided  with 
beaks,  another  invention  well  known  to  the  Assyrians,  and  fre- 
quently introduced  into  their  sculptures  in  the  representations 
of  Phoenician  vessels. 

In  the  Assyrian  biremes  the  oars  of  the  lower  tier  were 
worked  through  holes  in  the  vessel’s  sides.4 
This  arrangement  would,  of  course,  at 
once  supply  a fulcrum  and  keep  the  oars 
in  their  places.  But  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
see  how  the  oar  of  a common  row-boat, 
or  the  uppermost  tier  of  a bireme,  ob- 
tained their  purchase  on  the  vessel,  and 
were  prevented  from  slipping  along  its  side. 
Assyrian  vessels  had  no  rullocks,  and  in 
general  the  oars  are  represented  as  simply 
rested  without  any  support  on  the  upper 
edge  of  the  bulwark.  But  this  can  scarcely 
have  been  the  real  practice ; and  one  or 
two  representations,  where  a support  is 
provided,  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  show- 
ing what  the  practice  actually  was.  In 


Oar  kept  in  place  by  pegs 
(Koyunjik). 


the  figure  of  a hufa , or  round  boat,  already  given,5  it  will  be 


4 See  the  representation,  p.  361. 


3 Supra,  p.  546. 


Chap.  VII. 


COMMEECE. 


551 


seen  that  one  oar  is  worked  by  means  of  a thong,  like  the 
Tj007ro?  or  TponrcoTTip  of  the  Greeks,  which  is  attached  to  a ring 
in  the  bulwark.  In  another  bas-relief,6  several  of  the  oars  of 
similar  boats  are  represented  as  kept  in  place  by  means  of  two 
pegs  fixed  into  the  top  of  the  bulwark  and  inclined  at  an  angle 
to  one  another.  Probably  one  or  other  of  these  two  methods  of 
steadying  the  oar  wTas  in  reality  adopted  in  every  instance. 

With  regard  to  Assyrian  commerce,  it  must  at  the  outset  be 
remarked  that  direct  notices  in  ancient  writers  of  any  real 
authority  are  scanty  in  the  extreme.  The  Prophet  Nahum  says 
indeed,  in  a broad  and  general  way,  of  Nineveh — “ Thou  hast 
multiplied  thy  merchants  above  the  stars  of  heaven 7 and 
Ezekiel  tells  us  more  particularly  that  Assyrian  merchants, 
along  with  others,  traded  with  Tyre  “in  blue  clothes,  and 
broidered  work,  and  in  chests  of  rich  apparel.”8  But,  except 
these  two,  there  seem  to  be  no  notices  of  Assyrian  trade  in  any 
contemporary  or  quasi-con  temporary  author.  Herodotus,  writing 
nearly  two  hundred  years  after  the  empire  had  come  to  an  end, 
mentions  casually  that  “Assyrian  wares”  had  in  very  ancient 
times  been  conveyed  by  the  Phoenicians  to  Greece,  and  there 
sold  to  the  inhabitants.9  He  speaks  also  of  a river  traffic  in  his 
own  day  between  Armenia  and  Babylon  along  the  course  of  the 
Euphrates,10  a fact  which  indirectly  throws  light  upon  the  habits 
of  earlier  ages.  Diodorus,  following  Ctesias,  declares  that  a 
number  of  cities  were  established  from  very  ancient  times  on 
the  banks  of  both  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates,  to  serve  as 
marts  for  trade  to  the  merchants  who  imported  into  Assyria  the 
commodities  of  Media  and  Parse tacene. 11  Among  the  most 
important  of  these  marts,  as  we  learn  from  Strabo,  were 


6 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  Pis. 
12,  13.  The  entire  bas-relief,  of  which 
Mr.  Layard  has  represented  parts,  may 
be  seen  in  the  British  Museum. 

' Nahum  iii.  16. 

8  Ezek.  xxvii.  23,  24 : u Haran  and 
Canneh  and  Eden,  the  merchants  of 
Sheba,  Asshur,  and  Chilmad,  were  thy 
merchants.  These  were  thy  merchants  in 

all  sorts  of  things  [or,  excellent  things],  in 

blue  clothes  [or,  foldings],  and  broidered 

work,  and  in  chests  of  rich  apparel, 


bound  with  cords,  and  made  of  cedar, 
among  thy  merchandise.”  In  Ezek. 
xxvii.  6,  the  Asshurites 
are  said  to  have  made  the  Tyrians 
“ benches  of  ivory ; ” but  it  is  doubtful 
if  the  Assyrians  are  intended.  (Com- 
pare Gen.  xxv.  3.) 

9 Herod,  i.  1. 

10  Ibid.  i.  194.  (Compare  185.) 

11  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  11. 


552 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Tiphsach  or  Thapsacus  on  the  Euphrates,  and  Opis  upon  the 
Tigris.12 

It  is  from  notices  thus  scanty,  partial,  and  incidental,  eked 
out  by  probability,  and  further  helped  by  a certain  number  of 
important  facts  with  respect  to  the  commodities  actually  used 
in  the  country,  whereof  evidence  has  been  furnished  to  us  by 
the  recent  discoveries,  that  we  have  to  form  our  estimate  of  the 
ancient  commerce  of  the  Assyrians.  The  Inscriptions  throw 
little  or  no  light  upon  the  subject.  They  record  the  march  of 
armies  against  foreign  enemies,  and  their  triumphant  return 
laden  with  plunder  and  tribute,  sometimes  showing  incidentally 
what  products  of  a country  were  most  in  request  among  the 
Assyrians ; but  they  contain  no  accounts  of  the  journeys  of 
merchants,  or  of  the  commodities  which  entered  or  quitted  the 
country  in  the  common  course  of  trade. 

The  favourable  situation  of  Assyria  for  trade  has  often 
attracted  remark.1  Lying  on  the  middle  courses  of  two  great 
navigable  streams,  it  was  readily  approached  by  water  both 
from  the  north-west  and  from  the  south-east.  The  communica- 
tion between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Southern  or  Indian 
Ocean  naturally — almost  necessarily — followed  this  route.  If 
Europe  wanted  the  wares  and  products  of  India,  or  if  India 
required  the  commodities  of  Europe,  by  far  the  shortest  and 
easiest  course  was  the  line  from  the  eastern  Mediterranean 
across  Northern  Syria,  and  thence  by  one  or  other  of  the  two 
great  streams  to  the  innermost  recess  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  The 
route  by  the  Nile,  the  canal  of  Neco,  and  the  Eed  Sea,  was 
decidedly  inferior,  more  especially  on  account  of  the  dangerous 
navigation  of  that  sea,  but  also  because  it  was  circuitous,  and 
involved  a voyage  in  the  open  ocean  of  at  least  twice  the  length 
of  the  other.2 

Again,  Assyria  lay  almost  necessarily  on  the  line  of  land 


12  Strab.  xvi.  3,  § 4,  and  1,  § 9. 

1 Heeren,  Asiatic  Nations , vol.  ii.  pp. 
194-198,  E.  T. ; Layard,  Nineveh  and  its 
Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  414 ; Vance  Smith, 
Prophecies  relating  to  Nineveh,  pp.  62, 
63. 


2 The  distance  from  the  Straits  of 
Bab  el  Mandeb  to  the  western  mouth  of 
the  Indus  is  more  than  double  that 
from  the  Ras  Musendom  to  the  same 
point.  The  one  is  800,  the  other  1800 
miles. 


Chap.  YII. 


LINES  OF  LAND  TEAFFIC. 


553 


communication  between  the  north-east  and  the  south-west. 
The  lofty  Armenian  mountain-chains — Niphates  and  the  other 
parallel  ranges — towards  the  north,  and  the  great  Arabian 
Desert  towards  the  south,  offered  difficulties  to  companies  of 
land-traders  which  they  were  unwilling  to  face,  and  naturally 
led  them  to  select  routes  intermediate  between  these  two  obstacles, 
which  could  not  fail  to  pass  through  some  part  or  other  of  the 
Mesopotamian  region. 

The  established  lines  of  land  trade  between  Assyria  and  her 
neighbours  were  probably  very  numerous,  but  the  most  import- 
ant must  have  been  some  five  or  six.  One  almost  certainly  led 
from  the  Urumiyeh  basin  over  the  Keli-shin  pass  (lat.  37°,  long. 
45°  nearly),  descending  on  Rowandiz,  and  thence  following  the 
course  of  the  Greater  Zab  to  Herir,  whence  it  crossed  the  plain 
to  Nineveh.  At  the  summit  of  the  Keli-shin  pass  is  a pillar  of 
dark  blue  stone,  six  feet  in  height,  two  in  breadth,  and  one  in 
depth,  let  into  a basement  block  of  the  same  material,  and 
covered  with  a cuneiform  inscription  in  the  Scythic  character.3 
At  a short  distance  to  the  westward  on  the  same  route  is  another 
similar  pillar.4  The  date  of  the  inscriptions  falls  within  the 
most  flourishing  time  of  the  Assyrian  empire,5  and  their  erection 
is  a strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  use  of  this  route  (which  is 
one  of  the  very  few  possible  modes  of  crossing  the  Zagros  range) 
in  the  time  when  that  empire  was  in  full  vigour. 

Another  line  of  land  traffic  probably  passed  over  the  same 
mountain-range  considerably  further  to  the  south.  It  united 
Assyria  with  Media,  leading  from  the  Northern  Ecbatana 
(Takht-i-Suleiman)  by  the  Banneh  pass 6 to  Suleimaniyeh,  and 
thence  by  Kerkuk  and  Altun-Kiupri  to  Arbela  and  Nineveh. 

There  may  have  been  also  a route  up  the  valley  of  the  Lesser 
Zab,  by  Koi  - Sinjah  and  over  the  great  Kandil  range  into 
Lajihan.  There  are  said  to  be  Assyrian  remains  near  Koi- 


3 See  the  Journal  of  the  Geographical 
Society , vol.  x.  p.  21. 

4 Ibid.  p.  22. 

5 About  b.c.  700.  The  inscriptions 
are  in  the  early  Scythic  Armenian,  and 

belong  to  a king  called  Minna , who 


reigned  at  Van  towards  the  end  of  the 
eighth  century  b.c. 

6  This  pass  is  the  lowest  and  easiest 
in  the  whole  chain,  and  would  therefore 
almost  certainly  have  come  into  use  at 
a very  early  date. 


554 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Sinjah,7  at  a place  called  the  Bihisht  and  Jehennen  (i(  the 
Heaven  and  Hell”)  of  Nimrud,  but  no  account  has  been  given 
of  them  by  any  European  traveller. 

Westward  there  were  probably  two  chief  lines  of  trade  with 
Syria  and  the  adjacent  countries.  One  passed  along  the  foot 
of  the  Sinjar  range  by  Sidikan  (Arbari)  on  the  Khabour  to  Tiph- 
sach  (or  Thapsacas)  on  the  Euphrates,  where  it  crossed  the 
Great  River.  Thence  it  bent  southwards,  and  passing  through 
Tadinor,  was  directed  upon  Phoenicia  most  likely  by  way  of 
Damascus.8  Another  took  a more  northern  line  by  the  Mons 
Masius  to  Harran  and  Seruj,  crossing  the  Euphrates  at  Bir, 
and  thence  communicating  both  with  Upper  Syria  and  with 
Asia  Minor.  The  former  of  these  two  routes  is  marked  as  a line 
of  traffic  by  the  foreign  objects  discovered  in  such  abundance 
at  Arban,9  by  the  name  Tiphsach,  which  means  “ passage,” 10 
and  by  the  admitted  object  of  Solomon  in  building  Tadmor.11 
The  other  rests  on  less  direct  evidence;  but  there  are  indi- 
cations of  it  in  the  trade  of  Harran  with  Tyre  which  is  men- 
tioned by  Ezekiel,12  and  in  the  Assyrian  remains  near  Seruj,13 
* which  is  on  the  route  from  Harran  to  the  Bir  fordway. 

Towards  the  north,  probably  the  route  most  used  was  that 
which  is  thought  by  many  to  be  the  line  followed  by  Xenophon,1 
first  up  the  valley  of  the  Tigris  to  Til  or  Tilleh,  and  then  along 
the  Bitlis  Chai  to  the  lake  of  Van  and  the  adjacent  country. 
Another  route  may  have  led  from  Nineveh  to  Nisibis,  thence 
through  the  Jebel  Tur  to  Diarbekr,  and  from  Diarbekr  up  the 
Western  Tigris  to  Arghana,  Kharput,  Malatiyeh,  and  Asia 
Minor.  Assyrian  remains  have  been  found  at  various  points 


7 This  statement  is  made  on  the  au- 
thority of  Sir  H.  Kawlinson. 

8 See  the  article  on  Damascus  in  Dr. 
Smith's  Biblical  Dictionary , vol.  i.  p.  383. 

9 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp.* 
280-282. 

10  Tiphsach  is  formed  from  nDS 

“to  pass  over”  (whence  our  word 
“ Paschal  ”),  by  the  addition  of  the 
prosthetic  D. 

11  That  Solomon  built  Tadmor  for 
commercial  purposes  has  been  generally 


seen  and  allowed.  (Cf.  Ewald,  Geschichte 
d.  Volkes  Israel , vol.  iii.  p.  344,  2nd  ed. ; 
Kitto,  Biblical  Cyclopaedia , vol.  ii.  p.  816  ; 
Milman,  History  of  the  Jews , vol.  i.  p. 
266.)  12  Ezek.  xxvii.  23. 

13  See  above,  p.  197. 

1 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  49 
and  Map ; Ainsworth’s  Travels  in  the 
Track , &c.,  pp.  141-171.  Mr.  Ainsworth, 
however,  takes  the  Ten  Thousand  along 
the  route  from  Sert  to  Mush,  leaving 
the  Yan  Lake  considerably  to  the  east. 


Chap.  YII. 


IMPOSTS. 


555 


along  this  latter  line,2  while  the  former  is  almost  certain  to  have 
connected  the  Assyrian  with  the  Armenian  capital.3 

Armenian  productions  would,  however,  reach  Nineveh  and 
the  other  great  central  cities  mainly  by  the  Tigris,  down  which 
they  could  easily  have  been  floated  from  Tilleh  or  even  from 
Diarbekr.  Similarly,  Babylonian  and  Susianian  productions, 
together  with  the  commodities  which  either  or  both  of  those 
countries  imported  by  sea,  would  find  their  way  into  Assyria  up 
the  courses  of  the  two  streams,  which  were  navigated  by  vessels 
capable  of  stemming  the  force  of  the  current,  at  least  as  high  as 
Opis  and  Thapsacus.4 

We  may  now  proceed  to  inquire  what  were  the  commodities 
which  Assyria,  either  certainly  or  probably,  imported  by  these 
various  lines  of  land  and  water  communication.  Those  of  which 
we  seem  to  have  some  indication  in  the  existing  remains  are 
gold,  tin,  ivory,  lead,  stones  of  various  kinds,  cedar-wood,  pearls, 
and  engraved  seals. 

Many  articles  in  gold  have  been  recovered  at  the  various 
Assyrian  sites  where  excavations  have  been  made ; and  indi- 
cations have  been  found  of  the  employment  of  this  precious 
metal  in  the  ornamentation  of  palaces  and  of  furniture.5  The 
actual  quantity  discovered  has,  indeed,  been  small ; but  this 
may  be  accounted  for  without  calling  in  question  the  reality 
of  that  extraordinary  wealth  in  the  precious  metals  which  is 
ascribed  by  all  antiquity  to  Assyria.6  This  wealth  no  doubt 
flowed  in,  to  a considerable  extent,  from  the  plunder  of  con- 
quered nations  and  the  tribute  paid  by  dependant  monarch s. 
But  the  quantity  obtained  in  this  way  would  hardly  have 
sufficed  to  maintain  the  luxury  of  the  court  and  at  the  same 


3  Chiefly  by  Mr.  Consul  Taylor,  whose 
discoveries  in  this  region  will  be  again 
noticed  in  the  Historical  chapter. 

3 There  were  perhaps  two  other 
northern  routes  intermediate  between 

these : one  leading  up  the  Supnat  or 

river  of  Sophene — the  eastern  branch 
of  the  true  Tigris,  and  crossing  the 
Euphrates  at  Palou , where  there  is  an 
inscription  in  the  Scythic  Armenian ; 
and  the  other,  described  by  Procopius 


(De  JEdifc.  ii.  4),  which  crossed  the 
mountains  between  Redwan  and  Mush. 

4 Strab.  xvi.  1,  § 9,  and  3,  § 3. 

5 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  i.  pp.  30,  134;  vol.  ii.  pp.  263,  264; 
Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  652. 

6 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  27,  28 ; Athen.  Deipn. 
xii.  37  ; Phoenix  Coloph.  ap.  Athen.  xii. 
40;  Plin.  H.  N.  xxxiii.  15;  Nahum  ii. 
9,  &c. 


556 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


time  to  accumulate,  so  that  when  Nineveh  was  taken  there 
was  “ none  end  ” of  the  store.7  It  has  been  suggested 8 that 
“ mines  of  gold  were  probably  once  worked  within  the  Assyrian 
dominions,”  although  no  gold  is  now  known  to  be  produced 
anywhere  within  her  limits.  But  perhaps  it  is  more  probable 
that,  like  Judaea9  and  Phoenicia,10  she  obtained  her  gold  in  a 
great  measure  from  commerce,  taking  it  either  from  the 
Phoenicians,  who  derived  it  both  from  Arabia11  and  from  the 
West  African  coast,12  or  else  from  the  Babylonians,  who  may 
have  imported  it. by  sea  from  India.13 

Tin,  which  has  not  been  found  in  a pure  state  in  the  remains 
of  the  Assyrians,  but  which  enters  regularly  as  an  element  into 
their  bronze,  where  it  forms  from  one-tenth  to  one-seventh  of 
the  mass,14  was  also,  probably,  an  importation.  Tin  is  a compa- 
ratively rare  metal.  Abundant  enough  in  certain  places,  it  is 
not  diffused  at  all  widely  over  the  earth’s  surface.  Neither 
Assyria  itself  nor  any  of  the  neighbouring  countries  are  known 
to  have  ever  produced  this  mineral.  Phoenicia  certainly  im- 
ported it,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  Cornwall  and  the  Scilly 
Isles,  which  therefore  became  first  known  in  ancient  geography 
as  the  Cassiterides  or  “Tin  Islands.”15  It  is  a reasonable  sup- 
position that  the  tin,  wherewith  the  Assyrians  hardened  their 
bronze,  was  obtained  by  their  merchants  from  the  Phoenicians16 
in  exchange  for  textile  fabrics  and  (it  may  be)  other  commo- 
dities. If  so,  we  may  believe  that  in  many  instances  the  pro- 


7 The  whole  passage  in  Nahum  runs 
thus — “ Take  ye  the  spoil  of  silver , take 
the  spoil  of  gold:  for  there  is  none  end 
of  the  store,  the  abundance  of  every 
precious  thing.” 

8 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 

vol.  ii.  p.  416. 

9 1 Kings  ix.  28,  x.  11  ; Job  xxii.  24. 

10  Ezek.  xxvii.  22. 

11  The  “merchants  of  Sheba”  who 
“ occupied  ” in  the  fairs  of  Tyre  with 
“ chief  of  all  spices,  and  with  all 
precious  stones  and  gold  ” (Ezek.  1.  c.), 
were  undoubtedly  Arabians — i.e.  Sa- 
bseans  of  Yemen.  (Heeren,  Asiatic  Na- 
tions, vol.  ii.  p.  98,  E.  T. ; Poole  in  Smith’s 
Biblical  Dictionary , vol.  i.  p.  94,  ad  voc. 


Arabia.) 

12  Through  the  Carthaginians,  their 
colonists,  who  were  the  actual  traders 
in  this  quarter.  (See  Herod,  iv.  196.) 

13  Supra,  p.  101. 

14  See  the  results  of  Dr.  Percy's 
analysis  of  Assyrian  bronzes  in  Mr. 
Layard’s  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  Appendix, 
pp.  670-672. 

15  Compare  Herod,  iii.  115;  Posidon. 
Fr.  48 ; Polyb.  iii.  57,  § 3 ; Diod.  Sic. 
v.  22  and  38:  Strab.  iii,  p.  197;  Plin. 
H.  N.  iv.  22 ; Timaeus  ap.  Plin.  iv.  16  ; 
Pomp.  Mel.  iii.  6 ; Solin.  26.  According 
to  Diodorus  and  Strabo,  the  Phoenicians 
likewise  obtained  tin  from  Spain. 

16  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  191. 


Chap.  VII. 


IMPORTS. 


5 57 


duce  of  our  own  tin  mines,  which  left  our  shores  more  than 
twenty-five  centuries  ago,  has,  after  twice  travelling  a distance 
of  many  thousand  miles,  returned  to  seek  a final  rest  in  its 
native  country. 

Ivory  was  used  by  the  Assyrians  extensively  in  their  furni- 
ture,17 and  was  probably  supplied  by  them  to  the  Phoenicians 
and  the  Greeks.  It  was  no  doubt  sometimes  brought  to  them 
by  subject  nations  as  tribute ; 18  but  this  source  of  supply  is  not 
sufficient  to  account,  at  once  for  the  consumption  in  Assyria 
itself,  and  for  the  exports  from  Assyria  to  foreign  countries.19 
A regular  trade  for  ivory  seems  to  have  been  carried  on  from 
very  early  times  between  India  and  Dedan  ( Bahrein  ?)  in  the 
Persian  Gulf.20  The  “ travelling  companies  of  the  Dedanim,” 1 
who  conveyed  this  precious  merchandise  from  their  own  country 
to  Phoenicia,  passed  probably  along  the  course  of  the  Euphrates, 
and  left  a portion  of  their  wares  in  the  marts  upon  that  stream, 
which  may  have  been  thence  conveyed  to  the  great  Assyrian 
cities.  Or  the  same  people  may  have  traded  directly  with 
Assyria  by  the  route  of  the  Tigris.  Again,  it  is  quite  con- 
ceivable— indeed,  it  is  probable — that  there  was  a land  traffic 
between  Assyria  and  Western  India  by  the  way  of  Cabul,  Herat, 
the  Caspian  Gates,  and  Media.  Of  this  route  we  have  a trace 
in  the  land  animals  engraved  upon  the  well-known  Black 
Obelisk,  where  the  combination  of  the  small-eared  or  Indian 
elephant  and  the  rhinoceros  with  the  two-humped  Bactrian 
camel,2  sufficiently  marks  the  line  by  which  the  productions  of 
India,  occasionally  at  any  rate,  reached  Assyria.  The  animals 
themselves  were,  we  may  be  sure,  very  rarely  transported. 


17  Supra,  pp.  372-375.  The  classical 
writers  were  acquainted  with  this  fact. 
Dionysius  Periegetes  says  that  Semi- 
ramis  built  a temple  to  Belus, 

Xpvcrcj,  riS’  e\ed>av ti,  /cat  apyvpo*  a<TKrjcraara 
(1.  1008). 

And  Festus  Avienus  declares  of  the 
same  building, 

“Domus  lndo  dente  nitescit.”  (1.  931). 

18  See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson’s  Commentary 
on  the  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Babylonia 


and  Assyria , p.  48. 

19  On  this  subject  see  Mr.  Birch's 
Memoir  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Royal 
Society  of  Literature , New  Series,  vol. 
iii.  p.  174. 

20  See  Heeren,  Asiatic  Nations , vol.  ii. 
p.  245,  E.  T. ; Poole  in  Smith’s  Biblical 
Dictionary , ad  voc.  Dedan. 

1 Isaiah  xxi.  13.  Compare  Ezek. 
xxvii.  15. 

2 See  the  illustration,  supra,  p.  230. 


553 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Indeed,  it  is  not  till  the  very  close  of  the  Persian  empire  that 
we  find  elephants  possessed— and  even  then  in  scanty  numbers 
— by  the  Western  Asiatic  monarclis.3  But  the  more  portable 
products  of  the  Indus  region,  elephants’  tusks,  gold,  and  per- 
haps shawls  and  muslins,  are  likely  to  have  passed  to  the  west 
by  this  route  with  far  greater  frequency. 

The  Assyrians  were  connoisseurs  in  hard  stones  and  gems, 
which  they  seem  to  have  imported  from  all  quarters.  The 
lapis  lazuli,  which  is  found  frequently  among  the  remains  as 
the  material  of  seals,  combs,  rings,  jars,  and  other  small  objects, 
probably  came  from  Bactria  or  the  adjacent  regions,  whence 
alone  it  is  procurable  at  the  present  day.4  The  cornelian  used 
for  cylinders  may  have  come  from  Babylonia,  which,  according 
to  Pliny,5  furnished  it  of  the  best  quality  in  the  more  ancient 
times.  The  agates  or  onyxes  may  have  been  imported  from 
Susiana,  where  they  were  found  in  the  bed  of  the  Choaspes 
(Kerlthah),  or  they  may  possibly  have  been  brought  from 
India.6  Other  varieties  are  likely  to  have  been  furnished  by 
Armenia,  which  is  rich  in  stones ; and  hence  too  was  probably 
obtained  the  shamir,  or  emery-stone,7  by  means  of  which  the 
Assyrians  were  enabled  to  engrave  all  the  other  hard  substances 
known  to  them. 

That  cedar-wood  was  imported  into  Assyria  is  sufficiently 
indicated  by  the  fact  that,  although  no  cedars  grew  in  the 
country,  the  beams  in  the  palaces  were  frequently  of  this 


* Darius  Codomannus  had  but  fifteen 
elephants  at  Arbela.  (Arrian,  Exp. 
Alex.  iii.  8.) 

4 The  best  mines  are  those  near  Fyza- 
bad,  east  of  Balkh,  on  the  upper  Jihun 
river  (Fraser’s  Khorasan , pp.  105,  106). 
The  other  localities  where  the  stone  is 
found  are  the  region  about  Lake  Baikal, 
and  some  parts  of  Thibet  and  China. 
(See  Encycl.  Britann.  ad  voc.  Mine- 
ralogy.) 

5 Plin.  ff.  N.  x.xvii.  7. 

6 According  to  Ctesias  the  onyxes 
used  for  seals  by  the  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  were  chiefly  derived  from 
India.  (Ctes.  Ind.  § 5.)  Dionysius  Perie- 
getes  speaks  of  agates  as  abundant  in 


the  bed  of  the  Choaspes  ( Perieg . 11.  1075- 
1077). 

7  See  Theophrast.  Be  Lapid.  p.  397  ; 
Plin.  H.N.  xxxvi.  7 and  22.  That  the 
Naxian  stone  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
was  emery  is  proved  by  Mr.  King 
(. Ancient  Gems , p.  473),  who  believes  it 
to  have  been  first  used  by,  and  to  have 
derived  its  name  of  “ emery  ” from, 
the  Assyrians.  The  Semitic  shamir  or 
sh’mir  (TDK>)  became  the  Greek  crpvpis, 
Latin  smyris  or  smiris,  Italian  smeriglio , 
French  esmeril  or  emeril.  and  our 
“emery.”  It  seems  to  be  certain  that 
the  Assyrian  gems  could  not  have  been 
engraved  without  emery. 


Chap.  VII. 


IMPORTS. 


559 


material.8  It  may  not,  however,  have  been  exactly  an  article 
of  commerce,  since  the  kings  appear  to  have  cut  it,  after  their 
successful  expeditions  into  Syria,  and  to  have  carried  it  off 
from  Lebanon  and  Amanus  as  part  of  the  plunder  of  the 
country.9 

Pearls,  which  have  been  found  in  Assyrian  ear-rings,10  must 
have  been  procured  from  the  Persian  Gulf,  one  of  the  few 
places  frequented  by  the  shell-fish  which  produces  them.  The 
pearl  fisheries  in  these  parts  were  pointed  out  to  Nearchus,  the 
admiral  of  Alexander,11  and  had  no  doubt  been  made  to  yield 
their  treasures  to  the  natives  of  the  coasts  and  islands  from  a 
remote  antiquity.  The  familiarity  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Job  with  pearls 12  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  ancient  trade  in  them 
throughout  the  regions  adjoining  the  Gulf,  which  could  not 
fail  to  bring  them  at  an  early  date  to  the  knowdedge  of  the 
Hebrews. 

Engraved  stones,  generally  in  the  shape  of  scarabs,  seem  to 
have  been  largely  imported  from  Egypt  into  Assyria,  where 
they  were  probably  used  either  as  amulets  or  as  seals.  They 
have  been  found  in  the  greatest  plenty  at  Arban 13  on  the  lower 
Khabour,  the  ancient  Sidikan  or  Shadikanni,  which  lies  nearly 
at  the  extreme  west  of  the  Assyrian  territory  ; but  many 
specimens  have  likewise  been  obtained  from  Nineveh  and  other 
of  the  central  Assyrian  cities.14 

If  we  were  to  indulge  in  conjecture,  we  might  add  to  this  list 
of  Assyrian  importations  at  least  an  equal  number  of  com- 
modities which,  though  they  have  not  been  found  in  the  ancient 
remains,  may  be  fairly  regarded,  on  grounds  of  probability,  as 
objects  of  trade  between  Assyria  and  her  neighbours.  Frank- 
incense, which  was  burnt  in  such  lavish  profusion  in  the  great 
temple  at  Babylon,15  was  probably  offered  in  considerable 
quantities  upon  Assyrian  altars,  and  could  only  have  been 


8 Supra,  p.  307.  Compare  Layard, 

Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  357. 

9 Supra,  p.  475. 

10  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p. 
595.. 

11  Arrian,  Indica , p.  174. 


12  “No  mention  shall  be  made  of 
coral  or  of  pearls  : for  the  price  of  wis- 
dom is  above  rubies  ’ (Job  xxviii.  18). 

1:1  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp. 
281,  282. 

u Ibid.  p.  280. 


15  Herod,  i.  183. 


560 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


obtained  from  Arabia.16  Cinnamon,  which  was  used  by  the 
Jews  from  the  time  of  the  Exodus,17  and  which  was  early 
imported  into  Greece  by  the  Phoenicians,1  who  received  it  from 
the  Arabians,2  can  scarcely  have  been  unknown  in  Assyria 
when  the  Hebrews  were  familiar  with  it.  This  precious  spice 
must  have  reached  the  Arabians  from  Ceylon  or  Malabar,  the 
most  accessible  of  the  countries  producing  it.3  Muslins,  shawls, 
and  other  tissues  are  likely  to  have  come  by  the  same  route  as 
the  cinnamon ; and  these  may  possibly  have  been  among  the 
“blue  clothes  and  broidered  work  and  rich  apparel,”  which 
the  merchants  of  Asshur  carried  to  Tyre  in  “chests,  bound 
with  cords  and  made  of  cedar- wood.” 4 Dyes,  such  as  the 
Indian  lacca,5  raw  cotton,  ebony  and  other  woods,  may  have 
come  by  the  same  line  of  trade ; while  horses  and  mules  are 
likely  to  have  been  imported  from  Armenia,6  and  slaves  from 
the  country  between  Armenia  and  the  Halys  river.7 

If  from  the  imports  of  Assyria  we  pass  to  her  exports,  we 
leave  a region  of  uncertain  light  to  enter  upon  one  of  almost 
total  darkness.  That  the  “ wares  of  Assyria  ” were  among  the 
commodities  which  the  Phoenicians  imported  into  Greece  at  a 
very  early  period,  we  have  the  testimony  of  Herodotus ; 8 but 
he  leaves  us  wholly  without  information  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
wares  themselves.  No  other  classical  writer  of  real  authority 
touches  the  subject;  and  any  conclusions  that  we  may  form 
upon  it  must  be  derived  from  one  of  two  sources,  either  general 
probability,  or  the  single  passage  in  a sacred  author  which 


16  Herod,  iii.  107 : ’Ez/  8e  ravrr)  [ rfj 
’Apafi'ir)]  Ai^avoorSs  earn  fxovvr)  x^pewv 
7r acreuv  (pvofievos.  Virg.  Georg,  ii.  117: 

“ Solis  est  thurea  virga  Sabseis.” 

17  Ex.  xxx.  23. 

1 Herod,  iii.  111.  2 Ibid. 

3 Herodotus  thought  that  cinnamon 
was  a product  of  Arabia  (iii.  107).  But 
in  this  he  was  probably  mistaken.  (See 
Pliny,  H.  N.  xii.  19.)  No  true  cinnamon 
seems  to  grow  nearer  Europe  than  Ceylon 
and  Malabar. 

4 Ezek.  xxvii.  24.  The  conjecture  is 
made  by  Vincent  ( Periplus , vol.  i.  p.  62). 

5 See  Heeren  (. Asiatic  Nations , vol.  ii. 


p.  208,  E.  T.). 

6 Ezekiel  tells  us  that  Armenia  (Togar- 
mah)  traded  with  Phoenicia  in  “ horses, 
horsemen,  and  mules” — or,  more  cor- 
rectly, in  “ carriage-horses,  riding- 
horses,  and  mules”  (Hitzig,  Comment. 
ad  voc.).  In  such  articles  Assyria  would 
be  likely  to  be  at  least  as  good  a cus- 
tomer as  Phoenicia. 

7 Tubal  and  Meshech  (the  Tibareni 
and  Moschi)  “ traded  the  persons  of 
men  ” in  the  market  of  Tyre  (Ez.  xxvii. 
13).  Their  position  in  Assyrian  times 
was  between  Armenia  and  the  Halys. 

8 Herod,  i.  1 : 4> oprCa  ’Arravpia. 


Chap.  VII. 


EXPORTS. 


561 


gives  us  a certain  amount  of  authentic  information.9  From  the 
passage  in  question,  which  has  been  already  quoted  at  length,10 
we  learn  that  the  chief  of  the  Assyrian  exports  to  Phoenicia 
were  textile  fabrics,  apparently  of  great  value,  since  they  were 
most  carefully  packed  in  chests  of  cedar-wood  secured  by  cords. 
These  fabrics  may  have  been  “ blue  cloaks,” 11  or  “ em- 
broidery,”12 or  “rich  dresses”  of  any  kind,13  for  all  these  are 
mentioned  by  Ezekiel ; but  we  cannot  say  definitely  which 
Assyria  traded  in,  since  the  merchants  of  various  other  countries 
are  joined  in  the  passage  with  hers.  Judging  by  the  monu- 
ments, we  should  conclude  that  at  least  a portion  of  the 
embroidered  work  was  from  her  looms  and  workshops ; for,  as 
has  been  already  shown,  the  embroidery  of  the  Assyrians  was 
of  the  most  delicate  and  elaborate  description.14  She  is  also 
likely  to  have  traded  in  rich  apparel  of  all  kinds,  both  such 
as  she  manufactured  at  home  and  such  as  she  imported  from 
the  far  East  by  the  lines  of  traffic  which  have  been  pointed 
out.  Some  of  her  own  fabrics  may  possibly  have  been  of 
silk,  which  in  Roman  times  was  a principal  Assyrian  ex- 
port.15 Whether  she  exported  her  other  peculiar  productions, 
her  transparent  and  coloured  glass,  her  exquisite  metal  bowls, 
plates,  and  dishes,  her  beautifully  carved  ivories,  we  cannot 
say.  They  have  not  hitherto  been  found  in  any  place  be- 
yond her  dominion,16  so  that  it  would  rather  seem  that  she 
produced  them  only  for  home  consumption.  Some  ancient 
notices  appear  to  imply  a belief  on  the  part  of  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  that  she  produced  and  exported  various  spices. 
Horace  speaks  of  Assyrian  nard,17  Virgil  of  Assyrian  amo- 


9 Ezek.xxvii.  23,  24. 

10  Supra,  p.  551,  note  8. 

11  Neither  the  “clothes”  of  the  Au- 
thorised Version,  which  is  the  rendering 
in  the  text,  nor  the  “ foldings  ” of  the 
margin,  seems  to  give  the  true  meaning. 

Gdlom  (D'lbj)  is  from  t&J,  “to  wrap 
together,”  and  means  “ that  in  which  a 
man  wraps  himself,”  “ a cloak.”  Buxtorf 
translates  by  “pallium.”  {Lex.  ad  voc.) 

12  Rikmah  is  the  word  used, 

from  0*p*\  “ to  embroider.” 

VOL.  I. 


13  The  rare  word  is  explained 

by  R.  Salomon  as  “a  general  name  for 
beautiful  garments  in  Arabic.”  So  Kim- 
chi.  (See  Buxtorf  ad  voc.) 

14  Pp.  397,  398. 

15  Pliny,.  H.  N.  xi.  22  and  23. 

16  The  silver  bowls  found  in  Cyprus 
are  no  exception,  for  Cyprus  must  be 
regarded  as  within  the  dominions  of 
Assyria.  (See  p.  370,  note  2.) 

17  Hor.  Gd.  ii.  11,  16:  “Assyriaque 
nardo.” 

2 o 


562 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


mum}%  Tibullus  of  Assyrian  odours  generally.19  iEschylus  has 
an  allusion  of  the  same  kind  in  his  Agamemnon.20  Euripides21 
and  Theocritus,22  who  mention  respectively  Syrian  myrrh  and 
Syrian  frankincense,  probably  use  the  word  “ Syrian  ” for 
“Assyrian.”23  The  belief  thus  implied  is  not,  however,  borne 
out  by  inquiry.  Neither  the  spikenard  ( Nardostachys  Jata- 
mansi),  nor  the  amomum  ( Amomum  Cardamomum),  nor  the 
myrrh  tree  (. Balsamodendron  Myrrha ),  nor  the  frankincense 
tree  ( Boswettia  thurifera),  nor  any  other  actual  spice,24  is  pro- 
duced within  the  limits  of  Assyria,  which  must  always  have 
imported  its  own  spices  from  abroad,  and  can  only  have  supplied 
them  to  other  countries  as  a carrier.  In  this  capacity  she  may 
very  probably,  even  in  the  time  of  her  early  greatness,  have 
conveyed  on  to  the  coast  of  Syria  the  spicy  products  of  Arabia 
and  India,  and  thus  have  created  an  impression,  which  after- 
wards remained  as  a tradition,  that  she  was  a great  spice-pro- 
ducer as  well  as  a spice-seller. 

In  the  same  way,  as  a carrier,  Assyria  may  have  exported 
many  other  commodities.  She  may  have  traded  with  the 
Phoenicians,  not  only  in  her  own  products,  but  in  the  goods 
which  she  received  from  the  south  and  east,  from  Bactria, 
India,  and  the  Persian  Gulf — such  as  lapis  - lazuli,  pearls, 
cinnamon,  muslins,  shawls,  ivory,  ebony,  cotton.  On  the  other 
hand,  she  may  have  conveyed  to  India,  or  at  least  to  Babylon, 
the  productions  which  the  Phoenicians  brought  to  Tyre  and 
Sidon  from  the  various  countries  bordering  upon  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea  and  dven  the  Atlantic  Ocean — as  tin,  hides, 
pottery,  oil,  wine,  linen.  On  this  point,  however,  we  have  at 


18  Virg.  Eel.  iv.  25  : 

“ Assyrium  vulgb  nascetur  amomum.” 

19  Tibull.  Eleg.  i.  3,  7 : 

“Non  soror,  Assyrios  cineri  quae  dedat 
odores.” 

20  iEschyl.  Agam.  1.  1285  : 

Ov  "Xvpiov  ay\ai<rfJ.a  Su>p.a<TLV  Aeyeis. 

21  Eurip.  Baech.  1.  144 : 

Svpi'as  Aij3avou  team'd1;. 

22  Theocr.  Idyll,  xv.  114: 

Supteo  Se  fxvpu>  xpvaet’  aAa/3acrrpa. 

23  On  the  indifferent  use  of  the  terms 


“Syrian”  and  “Assyrian”  by  the 
Greeks,  see  the  author’s  Herodotus , vol. 
iv.  p.  51,  2nd  edition. 

24  There  are  many  spicy  shrubs  and 
plants  in  Assyria,  such  as  those  noticed 
by  Xenophon  ( Anab . i.  5,  § 1) ; but,  I 
believe,  none  of  the  plants  which  pro- 
duce the  spices  of  commerce.  (See  Mr. 
Ainsworth’s  Researches  in  Assyria , &c., 
p.  34.)  Strabo,  however,  it  must  be 
admitted,  distinctly  asserts  that  amomum 
was  produced  in  Mesopotamia  Proper 
(xvi.  p.  10C0). 


Chap.  VII. 


AGRICULTURE. 


563 


present  no  evidence  at  all ; and,  as  it  is  not  the  proper  office  of 
an  historian  to  indulge  at  any  length  in  mere  conjecture,  the 
consideration  of  the  commercial  dealings  of  the  Assyrians  may 
be  here  brought  to  a close. 

On  the  agriculture  of  the  Assyrians  a very  few  remarks  will 
be  offered.  It  has  been  already  explained  that  the  extent  of 
cultivation  depended  entirely  on  the  conveyance  of  water.1 2 
There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  Assyrians  found  a way 
to  spread  water  over  almost  the  whole  of  their  territory.  Either 
by  the  system  of  kanats  or  subterranean  aqueducts,  which  has 
prevailed  in  the  East  from  very  early  times,8  or  by  an  elaborate 
network  of  canals,  the  fertilising  fluid  was  conveyed  to  nearly 
every  part  of  Mesopotamia,  which  shows  by  its  innumerable 
mounds,  in  regions  which  are  now  deserts,  how  large  a popu- 
lation it  was  made  to  sustain  under  the  wise  management  of 
the  great  Assyrian  monarchs.3  Huge  dams  seem  to  have  been 
thrown  across  the  Tigris  in  various  places,  one  of  which  (the 
Awai)  still  remains,4  seriously  impeding  the  navigation.  It  is 
formed  of  large  masses  of  squared  stones,  united  together  by 
cramps  of  iron.  Such  artificial  barriers  were  intended,  not  (as 
Strabo  believed5)  for  the  protection  of  the  towns  upon  the 
river  from  a hostile  fleet,  but  to  raise  the  level  of  the  stream 
in  order  that  its  water  might  flow  off  into  canals  on  one  bank 
or  the  other,  whence  they  could  be  spread  by  means  of  minor 
channels  over  large  tracts  of  territory.  The  canals  themselves 


1 See  pp.  214,  215. 

2 Herodotus  indicates  some  knowledge 
of  the  system  when  he  relates  that  Cam- 
byses’  army,  in  its  passage  across  the 
desert  between  Syria  and  Egypt,  was  in 
part  supplied  with  water  by  means  of 
pipes  derived  from  a distant  river  which 
conducted  the  fluid  into  cisterns  (iii.  9). 
Polybius  says  that  the  plan  was  widely 
adopted  by  the  Persians  in  the  time  of 
their  empire  (x.  28,  § 3).  Strabo  says 
that  the  pipes  and  reservoirs  (avpiyyes 
and  vSpeia ) of  Western  Asia  were  popu- 
larly ascribed  to  Semiramis  (xvi.  1,  § 2). 

3 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , 
vol.  i.  p.  314  ; Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp. 
241-246. 

4 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 


vol.  i.  p.  8.  In  his  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 
Mr.  Layard  throws  some  doubt  upon  the 
real  purpose  of  this  wrork,  which  he  in- 
clines to  regard  as  the  wall  of  a town, 
rather  than  a dam  for  purposes  of  irri- 
gation (p.  466).  But  Captain  Jones 
thinks  the  work  was  certainly  a “ great 
dam.”  ( Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society, 
vol.  xv.  p.  343.) 

5  Strab.  xvi.  I,  § 9.  This  seems  to 
have  been  the  conjecture  of  the  Greeks 
who  accompanied  Alexander.  They 
found  the  dams  impede  their  own  ships, 
and  could  not  see  that  they  served  any 
other  purpose,  since  the  irrigation 
system  had  gone  to  ruin  as  the  Persian 
Empire  declined.  (See  Arrian,  Exp. 
Alex.  vii.  7.) 


2 o 2 


564 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


have  in  most  cases  been  gradually  filled  up.  In  one  instance, 
however,  owing  either  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  soil  or  to 
some  unexplained  cause,  we  are  still  able  to  trace  the  course 
of  an  Assyrian  work  of  this  class,  and  to  observe  the  manner 
and  principles  of  its  construction. 

In  the  tract  of  land  lying  between  the  lower  course  of  the 
Great  Zab  River  and  the  Tigris,  in  which  was  situated  the  im- 
portant town  of  Calah  (now  Nimrud),  a tract  which  is  partly 
alluvial,  but  more  generally  of  secondary  formation,  hard  gravel, 
sandstone,  or  conglomerate,  are  the  remains  of  a canal  un- 
doubtedly  Assyrian,6  which  was  carried  for  a distance  of  more 
than  five-and-twenty  miles  from  a point  on  the  Khazr  or  Ghazr 
Su,  a tributary  of  the  Zab,  to  the  south-eastern  corner  of  the 
Nimrud  ruins.  Originally  the  canal  seems  to  have  been  derived 
from  the  Zab  itself,  the  water  of  which  was  drawn  off,  on  its 
northern  bank,  through  a short  tunnel — the  modern  Negoub — 
and  then  conducted  along  a cutting,  first  by  the  side  of  the 
Zab,  and  afterwards  in  a tortuous  course  across  the  undulating 
plain,  into  the  ravine  formed  by  the  Shor-Derreh  torrent.  The 
Zab,  when  this  part  of  the  work  was  constructed,  ran  deep 
along  its  northern  bank,  and  sending  a portion  of  its  waters 
into  the  tunnel  maintained  a constant  stream  in  the  canal. 
But  after  a while  the  river  abandoned  its  north  bank  for  the 
opposite  shore ; and,  water  ceasing  to  flow  through  the  Negoub 
tunnel,  it  became  necessary  to  obtain  it  in  some  other  way. 
Accordingly  the  canal  was  extended  northwards,  partly  by 
cutting  and  partly  by  tunnelling,  to  the  Ghazr  Su  at  about  two 
miles  above  its  mouth,  and  a permanent  supply  was  thenceforth 
obtained  from  that  stream.7  The  work  may  have  been  intended 
in  part  to  supply  Calah  with  mountain-water ; 8 but  the  remains 


6 The  Assyrian  inscription  found  by 
Mr.  Layard  in  the  tunnel  at  Negoub,  of 
which  he  copied  a portion  imperfectly 
before  its  destruction  ( Nineveh  and  its 
Remains , vol.  i.  p.  80 ),  sufficiently  proves 
this. 

7 See  the  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society , 

vol.  xv.  pp.  310,  311. 

8 Captain  Jones  regards  this  as  its 


sole  object  ( Asiatic  Society’s  Journal , 
1.  s.  c.) ; but  Mr.  Layard  is  probably 
right  in  his  view  that  irrigation  was 
at  least  one  purpose  which  the  canal 
was  intended  to  subserve  ( Nineveh  and 
its  Remains , vol.  i.  p.  81).  Several  canals 
for  irrigation  seem  to  have  been  made 
by  Sennacherib  (. Nineveh  and  Babylon , 
p.  212). 


Chap.  VII. 


CANALS. 


565 


of  dams  and  sluices  along  its  course 9 sufficiently  show  that  it 
was  a canal  for  irrigation  also.  From  it  water  was  probably 
derived  to  fertilise  the  whole  triangle  lying  south  of  Nimrud 
between  the  two  streams,  a tract  containing  nearly  thirty 
square  miles  of  territory,  mostly  very  fertile,  and  with  careful 
cultivation  well  capable  of  supporting  the  almost  metropolitan 
city  on  which  it  abutted. 


Chart  of  the  district  about  Nimrud,  showing  the  course  of  the  ancient  canal 
and  conduit. 


In  Assyria  it  must  have  been  seldom  that  the  Babylonian 
system  of  irrigation  could  have  been  found  applicable,  and  the 
water  simply  derived  from  the  rivers  by  side-cuts,  leading  it  off 
from  the  natural  channel.10  There  is  but  little  of  Assyria 


9 These  are  “ ingeniously  formed  from 
the  original  rock  left  standing  in  the 
centre.”  (Jones,  ut  supra.) 

10  Irrigation  of  this  simple  kind  is 


applicable  to  parts  of  Eastern  Assyria, 
between  the  Tigris  and  the  mountains. 
(See  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p. 
224.) 


566 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


which  is  flat  and  alluvial ; the  land  generally  undulates,  and 
most  of  it  stands  at  a considerable  height  above  the  various 
streams.  The  water  therefore  requires  to  be  raised  from  the 
level  of  the  rivers  to  that  of  the  lands  before  it  can  be  spread 
over  them,  and  for  this  purpose  hydraulic  machinery  of  one 
kind  or  another  is  requisite.  In  cases  where  the  kanat  or 
subterranean  conduit  was  employed,  the  Assyrians  probably 
(like  the  ancient  and  the  modern  Persians11)  sank  wells  at 
intervals,  and  raised  the  water  from  them  by  means  of  a bucket 
and  rope,  the  latter  working  over  a pulley.12  Where  they 
could  obtain  a bank  of  a convenient  height  overhanging  a 
river,  they  made  use  of  the  hand-swipe,13  and  with  its  aid 
lifted  the  water  into  a tank  or  reservoir,  whence  they  could 
distribute  it  over  their  fields.  In  some  instances,  it  would 
seem,  they  brought  water  to  the  tops  of  hills  by  means  of 
aqueducts,  and  then  constructing  a number  of  small  channels, 
let  the  fluid  trickle  down  them  among  their  trees  and  crops.14 
They  may  have  occasionally,  like  the  modern  Arabs,15  em- 
ployed the  labour  of  an  animal  to  raise  the  fluid;  but  the 
monuments  do  not  furnish  us  with  any  evidence  of  their  use  of 
this  method.  Neither  do  we  find  any  trace  of  water-wheels, 
such  as  are  employed  upon  the  Orontes  and  other  swift  rivers, 
whereby  a stream  can  itself  be  made  to  raise  water  for  the  land 
along  its  banks.1 

According  to  Herodotus,  the  kinds  of  grain  cultivated  in 
Assyria  in  his  time  were  wheat,  barley,  sesame,  and  millet.2 
As  these  still  constitute  at  the  present  day  the  principal 
agricultural  products  of  the  country,3  we  may  conclude  that 


11  For  the  ancient  practice  see  Polyb. 
1.  s.  c. ; for  the  modern  compare  Mal- 
colm, History  of  Persia,  vol.  i.  p.  14 ; 
Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  ii. 
p.  657. 

12  See  the  representation  on  p.  404. 

13  See  Layard’s  Monuments,  2nd  Series, 
PI.  15  ; and  compare  above,  p.  215. 

14  An  instance  of  this  mode  of  irriga- 
tion appears  on  a slab  of  the  Lower 
Empire,  part  of  which  is  represented  on 
p.  310. 

15  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Pemains, 


vol.  i.  pp.  353,  354. 

1 Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  400. 
Abulfeda  says  that  the  Orontes  acquired 
its  name  of  El  Asi,  “ the  rebel,”  from 
its  refusal  to  water  the  lands  unless 
compelled  by  water-wheels  ( Tabl . Syr. 
pp.  149,  150,  ed.  Kohler).  The  wheels 
upon  the  Rhone  below  Geneva  will  be 
familiar  to  most  readers. 

2 Herod,  i.  193. 

3 Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains, 

vol.  ii.  p.  423. 


Chap.  VH.  AGEICULTUEAL  PEODUCTS.  5 ^7 

they  were  in  all  probability  the  chief  species  cultivated  under 
the  Empire.  The  plough 
used,  if  we  may  judge  by 
the  single  representation 
of  it  which  has  come  down 
to  us,4  was  of  a rude 
and  primitive  construc- 
tion— a construction,  how- 
ever, which  will  bear  com- 
parison with  that  of  the 
implements  to  this  day  in 
use  through  modern  Tur- 
key and  Persia.5  Of  other 
agricultural  implements 
we  have  no  specimens  at 
all,  unless  the  square  in- 
strument with  a small 
circle  or  wheel  at  each 
corner,  which  appears  on 
the  same  monument  as  the 
plough,  may  be  regarded 
as  intended  for  some  farming  purpose. 

Besides  grain,  it  seems  certain  that  the  Assyrians  cultivated 
the  vine.  The  vine  will  grow  well  in  many  parts  of  Assyria ; 6 
and  the  monuments  represent  vines,  with  a great  deal  of  truth? 
not  merely  as  growing  in  the  countries  to  which  the  Assyrians 
made  their  expeditions,  but  as  cultivated  along  the  sides  of 
the  rivers  near  Nineveh,7  and  in  the  gardens  belonging  to  the 


No.  I.  Assyrian  drill-plough  (from  Lord 
Aberdeen’s  Black  Stone j. 


No.  II.  Modern  Turkish  plough. 


4 Mr.  Layard  calls  this  plough  Baby- 
lonian rather  than  Assyrian  (ib.  p.  422). 
But  the  black  stone  on  which  it  is  en- 
graved is  a monument  of  Esarhaddon. 

5 See  Fellows’s  Asia  Minor , p.  71; 
and  compare  his  Lycia , p.  174.  See 
also  C.  Niebuhr’s  Description  de  V Arable, 
opp.  p.  137.  The  chief  point  in  which 
the  Assyrian  plough,  as  above  repre- 

sented, differs  from  the  ordinary  models, 
is  in  the  existence  of  an  apparatus  (a  6) 

for  drilling  the  seed.  It  is  evident  that 


the  bowl  a was  filled  with  grain,  which 
ran  down  the  pipe  b,  and  entered  the 
ground  immediately  after  the  plough- 
share, at  the  point  c. 

6 See  p.  218,  note1.  To  the  places 
there  mentioned,  I may  add  the  vicinity 
of  Bavian,  on  the  authority  of  the  MS. 
notes  communicated  to  me  by  Mr.  Ber- 
rington. 

7 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 
Pis.  14,  15,  and  17. 


568 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


palaces  of  the  kings.8  In  the  former  case  they  appear  to  grow 
without  any  support,  and  are  seen  in  orchards  intermixed  with 
other  fruit-trees,  as  pomegranates  and  figs.  In  the  latter  they 
are  trained  upon  tall  trees  resembling  firs,  round  whose  stems 
they  twine  themselves,  and  from  which  their  rich  clusters  droop. 
Sometimes  the  long  lithe  boughs  pass  across  from  tree  to  tree, 
forming  a canopy  under  which  the  monarch  and  his  consort  sip 
their  wine.9 

Before  concluding  this  chapter  a few  remarks  will  be  added 
upon  the  ordinary  private  life  of  the  Assyrians,  so  far  as  the 
monuments  reveal  it  to  us.  Under  this  head  will  be  included 
their  dress,  their  food,  their  houses,  furniture,  utensils,  carriages, 
&c.,  their  various  kinds  of  labour,  and  the  implements  of  labour 
which  were  known  to  them. 

The  ordinary  dress  of  the  common  people  in  Assyria  was  a 
mere  plain  tunic,  or  shirt,  reaching  from  the  neck  to  a little 
above  the  knee,  with  very  short  sleeves,  and  confined  round  the 
waist  by  a broad  belt  or  girdle.10  Nothing  was  worn  either  upon 
the  head  or  upon  the  feet.  The  thick  hair,  carried  in  large 
waves  from  the  forehead  to  the  back  of  the  head,  and  then 
carefully  arranged  in  three,  four,  or  five  rows  of  stiff  curls,  was 
regarded  as  a sufficient  protection  both  from  sun  and  rain.  No 
head-covering  was  ever  worn,  except  by  soldiers,  and  by  certain 
officials,  as  the  king,  priests,  and  musicians.  Sometimes,  if  the 
hair  was  very  luxuriant,  it  was  confined  by  a band  or  fillet, 
which  .was  generally  tied  behind  the  back  of  the  head.  The 
beard  was  worn  long,  and  arranged  with  great  care,  the  elabora- 
tion being  pretty  nearly  the  same  in  the  case  of  the  king  and  of 
the  common  labourer.  Labourers  of  a rank  a little  above  the 
lowest  wore  sandals,  indulged  in  a fringed  tunic,  and  occasionally 
in  a phillibeg ; while  a still  higher  class  had  the  fringed  tunic 
and  phillibeg,  together  with  the  close-fitting  trouser  and  boot 
worn  by  soldiers.11  These  last  are  frequently  eunuchs,  who  pro- 


8 See  above,  p.  353. 

9 See  the  representation  given  above, 
p.  493. 

10  See,  for  instance,  the  fishermen, 


supra,  pp.  526  and  527. 

11  Layard,  Monuments,  2nd  Series,  PJ. 
17;  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  108  and 

134. 


DRESS  OF  THE  UPPER  CLASSES. 


Chap.  VII. 


569 


bably  belonged  to  a corps  of  eunuch  labourers  in  the  employ  of 
the  king. 

Persons  of  the  humbler  labouring  class  wear  no  ornament, 
neither  armlet,  bracelet,  nor  ear-rings.  Armlets  and  bracelets 
mark  high  rank,  and  indeed  are  rarely  found  unless  the  wearer 
is  either  an  officer  of  the  court,  or  at  any  rate  a personage  of  some 
consideration.  Ear-rings  seem  to  have  descended  lower.  They 
are  worn  by  the  attendants  on  sportsmen,  by  musicians,  by 
cavalry  soldiers,  and  even  occasionally  by  foot  soldiers.  In  this 
last  case  they  are  seldom  more  than  a simple  ring,  which  may 
have  been  of  bronze  or  of  bone.  In  other  cases  the  ring  mostly 
supports  a long  pendant.12 

Men  of  rank  appear  to  have  worn  commonly  a long  fringed 
robe  reaching  nearly  to  the  feet.13  The  sleeves  were  short,  only 
just  covering  the  shoulder.  Down  to  the  waist,  the  dress  closely 
fitted  the  form,  resembling,  so  far,  a modern  jersey ; below  this 
there  was  a slight  expansion,  but  still  the  scantiness  of  the  robe 
is  very  remarkable.  It  had  no  folds,  and  must  have  greatly 
interfered  with  the  free  play  of  the 
limbs,  rendering  rapid  movements 
almost  impossible.  A belt  or  girdle 
confined  it  at  the  waist,  which  was 
always  patterned,  sometimes  elabo- 
rately. If  a sword  was  carried,  as  was  frequently  the  case,  it  was 
suspended,  nearly  in  a horizontal  position,  by  a belt  over  the 
left  shoulder,  to  which  it  was  attached  by  a 
ring,  or  rings,  in  the  sheath.1  There  is  often 
great  elegance  in  these  cross-belts,  which  look  ^69809000080636998896 

as  if  they  were  embroidered  with  pearls  or  Ornamental  cross- 
. i....  , . , r , ..  belt  (Khorsabad). 

beads.  I diets,  ear-rings,  armlets,  and  (in 
most  instances)  bracelets  were  also  worn  by  Assyrians  of  the 
upper  classes.  The  armlets  are  commonly  simple  bands,  twisted 
round  the  arm  once  or  twice,  and  often  overlapping  at  the  ends, 
which  are  plain,  not  ornamented.  The  bracelets  are  of  slighter 


12  For  specimens  of  ear-rings,  see  I above,  p.  491. 

p.  371.  | 1 Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vol.  ii. 

13  This  robe  closely  resembled  the  I Pis.  Ill  to  114;  Layard,  Monuments , 
under-garment  of  the  monarch.  See  j 2nd  Series,  PI.  32, 


570 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


construction ; their  ends  do  not  meet ; they  would  seem  to  have 
been  of  thin  metal,  and  sufficiently  elastic  to  be  slipped  over 
the  hand  on  to  the  wrist,  which  they  then  fitted  closely. 
Generally  they  were  quite  plain  ; but  sometimes,  like  the  royal 
bracelets,  they  bore  in  their  centre  a rosette.2  Sandals,  or  in 
the  later  times  shoes,  completed  the  ordinary  costume  of  the 
Assyrian  “ gentleman.” 


Armlets  of  Assyrian  grandees  (Khorsabad). 


Sometimes  both  the  girdle  round  the  waist,  and  the  cross- 
belt, which  was  often  worn  without  a sword,  were  deeply  fringed, 
the  two  fringes  falling  one  over  the  other,  and  covering  the 
whole  body  from  the  chest  to  the  knee.3  Sometimes,  but  more 
rarely,  the  long  robe  was  discarded,  and  the  Assyrian  of  some 
rank  wore  the  short  tunic,  which  was  then,  however,  always 
fringed,  and  commonly  ornamented  with  a phillibeg.4 

Certain  peculiar  head-dresses  and  peculiar  modes  of  arranging 
the  hair  deserve  special  attention  from  their  singularity.  They 
belong  in  general  to  musicians,  priests,  and  other  official  per- 
sonages, and  may  perhaps  have  been  badges  of  office.  For 
instance,  musicians  sometimes  wear  on  their  heads  a tall  stiff 
cap  shaped  like  a fish’s  tail ; 5 at  other  times  their  head-dress  is 
a sort  of  tiara  of  feathers.6  Their  hair  is  generally  arranged  in 
the  ordinary  Assyrian  fashion ; but  sometimes  it  is  worn  com- 
paratively short,  and  terminates  in  a double  row  of  crisp  curls.7 


2 Botta,  Pis.  12  and  14. 

3 Ibid.  Pis.  60  to  66,  110. 

4 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI. 
32;  Botta,  Pis.  108,  109,  and  111. 

5 See  Woodcut,  No.  I.,  on  the  next 

page.  Two  instances  of  this  remarkable 


cap  occur  in  the  British  Museum  sculp- 
tures. Both  are  from  Sennacherib’s 
palace  at  Koyunjik. 

6 See  the  illustration  on  page  533. 

7 Botta,  vol.  i.  PI.  67.  See  above,  p. 
532. 


Chap.  VII. 


CURIOUS  HEAD-DRESSES. 


571 


Priests  have  head-dresses  shaped  like  truncated  cones.8  A 
cook,  in  one  instance,9  wears  a cap  not  unlike  the  tiara  of  the 


No.  III.  Cap  of  the  king’s  No.  I.  Fish-cap  of  Assyrian  No.  II.  Tall  cap  of 
cook  (Koyunjik).  musician  (Koyunjik).  Assyrian  priest  (Koyunjik). 


monarch,  except  that  it  is  plain,  and  is  not  surmounted  by  an 
apex  or  peak.  A harper  has  the  head  covered  with  a close- 
fitting  cap,  encircled  with  a row  of  large 
beads  or  pearls,  from  which  a lappet  de- 
pends behind,  similarly  ornamented.10  A 
colossal  figure  in  a doorway,  apparently  a 
man,  though  possibly  representing  a god, 
has  the  hair  arranged  in  six  monstrous 
curls,  the  lowest  three  resting  upon  the 
shoulder.11 

Women  of  the  better  sort  seem  to  have 
been  dressed  in  sleeved  gowns,  less  scanty 
than  those  of  the  men,  and  either  striped, 
or  else  patterned  and  fringed.  Outside 
this  they  sometimes  wore  a short  cloak  of  the  same  pattern  as 
the  gown,  open  in  front  and  falling  over  the  arms,  which  it 
covered  nearly  to  the  elbows.  Their  hair  was  either  arranged 
over  the  whole  of  the  head  in  short  crisp  curls,  or  carried  back 


8 Layard,  2nd  Series,  Pis.  24  and  50. 

9 Ibid.  1st  Series,  PI.  30. 

10  This  curious  head-dress  occurs  on 

a slab  from  the  palace  of  Asshur-bani- 


pal  at  Koyunjik,  which  is  now  in  the 
British  Museum. 

11  Mr.  Layard  has  a representation  of 
this  figure : Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI.  G. 


572 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


in  waves  to  the  ears,  and  then  in  part  twisted  into  long  pen- 
dent ringlets,  in  part  curled,  like  that  of  the  men,  in  three  or 

four  rows  at  the  back  of  the 
neck.  A girdle  was  probably 
worn  round  the  waist,  such 
as  we  see  in  the  represen- 
tations of  goddesses,12  while 
a fringed  cross-belt  passed 
diagonally  across  the  breast, 
being  carried  under  the  right 
arm  and  over  the  left  shoul- 
der. The  feet  seem  to  have 
been  naked,  or  at  best  pro- 
tected by  a sandal.  The 
head  was  sometimes  encir- 
cled with  a fillet. 

Women  thus  appareled 
are  either  represented  as 
sitting  in  chairs  and  drink- 
ing from  a shallow  cup,  or 
else  as  gathering  grapes, 
which,  instead  of  growing 
naturally,  hang  upon  branches  that  issue  from  a winged  circle. 
The  circle  would  seem  to  be  emblematic  of  the  divine  power 
which  bestows  the  fruits  of  the  earth  upon  man. 

The  lower  class  of  Assyrian  women  are  not  represented  upon 
the  sculptures.  We  may  perhaps  presume  that  they  did  not 
dress  very  differently  from  the  female  captives  so  frequent  on 
the  bas-reliefs,  whose  ordinary  costume  is  a short  gown  not 
covering  the  ankles,  and  an  outer  garment  somewhat  resembling 
the  chasuble  of  the  king.13  The  head  of  these  women  is  often 
covered  with  a hood : where  the  hair  appears,  it  usually  descends 
in  a single  long  curl.  The  feet  are  in  every  case  naked. 

The  ornaments  worn  by  women  appear  to  have  been  nearly 
the  same  as  those  assumed  by  men.  They  consisted  principally 


Female  seated.  (From  an  ivory  in  the 
British  MuSeum.) 


12  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  65.  13  See  the  illustration,  supra,  p.  480. 


Chap.  VII. 


ORNAMENTS  WORN  BY  WOMEN. 


573 


of  ear-rings,  necklaces,  and  bracelets.  Ear-rings  have  been 
found  in^gold  and  in  bronze,  some  with  and  some  without  places 
for  jewels.  One  gold  ear-ring  still  held  its  adornment  of  pearls.14 
Bracelets  were  sometimes  of  glass,  and  were  slipped  over  the 
hand.  Necklaces  seem  commonly  to  have  been  of  beads,  strung 


together.  A necklace  in  the  British  Museum  is  composed  of 
glass  beads  of  a light  blue  colour,  square  in  shape  and  flat,  with 
horizontal  flutings.15  Glass  finger-rings  have  also  been  found, 
which  were  probably  worn  by  women. 

We  have  a few  remains  of  Assyrian  toilet  articles.  A 
bronze  disk,  about  five  inches  in  diameter,  with  a long  handle 
attached,  is  thought  to  have  been  a mirror.  In  its  general 
shape  it  resembles  both  the  Egyptian  and  the  classical  mir- 


14  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , p.  595. 


15  See  the  woodcut  overleaf. 


574 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


rors ; 16  but,  unlike  them,  it  is  perfectly  plain,  even  the  handle  being 
a mere  flat  bar.17  We  have  also  a few  combs.  One^of  these 

is  of  iron,  about  three  and 
a half  inches  long,  by  two 
inches  broad  in  the  mid- 
dle. It  is  double,  like  a 
modern  small-tooth  comb, 
but  does  not  present 
the  feature,  common  in 
Egypt,18  of  a difference 
in  the  size  of  the  teeth  on 
the  two  sides.  The  very 
ancient  use  of  this  toilet 
article  in  Mesopotamia  is 

Necklace  of  flat  beads  (British  Museum). 

already  noticed,19  that  it  was  one  of  the  original  hieroglyphs, 
whence  the  later  letters  were  derived.  Another  comb  is  of 
lapis-lazuli,  and  has  only  a single  row  of  teeth.  The  small  vases 
of  alabaster  or  fine  clay,  and  the  small  glass  bottles  which  have 
been  discovered  in  tolerable  abundance,20  were  also  in  all  pro- 
bability intended  chiefly  for  the  toilet.  They  would  hold  the 
perfumed  unguents  which  the  Assyrians,  like  other  Orientals,21 
were  doubtless  in  the  habit  of  using,  and  the  dyes  wherewith 
they  sought  to  increase  the  beauty  of  the  countenance.22 

No  doubt  the  luxury  of  the  Assyrian  women  in  these  and 
other  respects  was  great  and  excessive.  They  are  not  likely  to 
have  fallen  short  of  their  Jewish  sisters  either  in  the  refine- 
ments or  in  the  corruptions  of  civilisation.  When  then  we  hear 
of  “the  tinkling  ornaments”  of  the  Jewish  women  in  Isaiah’s 


evidenced  by  the  fact, 


16  See  Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyptians , 
1st  Series,  vol.  iii.  pp.  585,  586  ; and 
Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Antiquities , ad  voc. 
Speculum,  p.  1053,  2nd  col. 

17  A handle  of  a mirror  found  by  Mr. 
Layard  at  Nimrud  was  slightly  orna- 
mented (. Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  96, 
% 11). 

18  Wilkinson,  1st  Series,  vol.  iii.  p. 

380.  19  Supra,  p.  65. 

20  Supra,  p.  390. 


21  As  the  Persians  (Plin.  H.  N.  xiii. 
1),  the  Egyptians  (Juv.  xv.  50),  the 
Parthians  (Plin.  H.  N.  xiii.  2),  the 
Syrians  (Athen.  Deipn.  xii.  35 ; Hor. 
ii.  7,  1.  8),  and  the  Jews  (Eccl.  ix.  8 ; 
Luke  vii.  46,  &c.). 

22  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  23,  § 1.  In  some  of 
the  bas-reliefs  both  the  upper  and  the 
under  eyelids  are  painted  black.  See 
above,  p.  364  ; and  compare  Layard’s 
Monuments , 1st  Series,  PI.  92. 


Chap.  YU. 


LUXURY  OF  THE  ASSYRIAN  LADIES. 


575 


time,  “their  combs,  and  round  tires  like  the  moon,”  their 
“ chains  and  bracelets  and  mufflers,”  their  “ bonnets,  and  orna- 


ments of  the  legs,  and  head-bands, 
and  tablets,  and  ear-rings,”  their 
“rings  and  nose-jewels,”  their 
“ changeable  suits  of  apparel,  and 
mantles,  and  wimples,  and  crisp- 
ing-pins,”  their  “ glasses,  and  fine 
linen,  and  hoods,  and  veils,”  their 
“sweet  smells,  and  girdles,  and 
well-set  hair,  and  stomachers,”1 
we  may  be  sure  that  in  Assyria 
too  these  various  refinements,  or 
others  similar  to  them,  were  in 
use,  and  consequently  that  the 
art  of  the  toilet  was  tolerably 
well  advanced  under  the  second 
great  Asiatic  Empire.  That  the 
monuments  contain  little  evi- 
dence on  the  point  need  not  cau 


Metal  mirror  (British  Museum). 

any  surprise ; since  it  is  the 


Iron  comb 
(British  Museum). 


Fragment  of  comb  in  lapis-lazuli 
(British  Museum). 


natural  consequence  of  the  spirit  of  jealous  reserve,  common  to 
the  Oriental  nations,  which  makes  them  rarely  either  represent 


1 Isaiah  iii.  18-24.  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  the  words  of  the  original 
in  this  passage  are  throughout  correctly 
translated.  Indeed  the  margin  shows 


how  doubtful  many  of  them  are.  But 
there  is  no  reason  to  question  that  they 
all  represent  different  articles  of  the 
dress  or  toilet  of  women. 


576 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


women  in  their  mimetic  art  or  speak  of  them  in  their  public 
documents.2 

If  various  kinds  of  grain  were  cultivated  in  Assyria,  such  as 
wheat,  barley,  sesame,  and  millet,3  we  may  assume  that  the 
food  of  the  inhabitants,  like  that  of  other  agricultural  nations, 
consisted  in  part  of  bread.  Sesame  was  no  doubt  used,  as  it  is 
at  the  present  day,  principally  for  making  oil;4  while  wheat, 
barley,  and  millet  were  employed  for  food,  and  were  made  into 
cakes  or  loaves.  The  grain  used,  whatever  it  was,  would  be 
ground  between  two  stones,5  according  to  the  universal  Oriental 
practice  even  at  the  present  day.6  It  would  then  be  moistened 
with  water,  kneaded  in  a dish  or  bowl,  and  either  rolled  into 
thin  cakes,  or  pressed  by  the  hand  into  small  balls  or  loaves.7 
Bread  and  cakes  made  in  this  way  still  form  the  chief  food  of 
the  Arabs  of  these  parts,  who  retain  the  habits  of  antiquity. 
'Wheaten  bread  is  generally  eaten  by  preference ; 8 but  the 
poorer  sort  are  compelled  to  be  content  with  the  coarse  millet,9 
or  durra,  flour,  which  is  made  into  cakes,  and  then  eaten  with 
milk,  butter,  oil,  or  the  fat  of  animals. 

Dates,  the  principal  support  of  the  inhabitants  of  Chaldoea,  or 
Babylonia,  both  in  ancient  and  in  modem  times,10  were  no 
doubt  also  an  article  of  food  in  Assyria,  though  scarcely  to  any 
great  extent.  The  date-palm  does  not  bear  well  above  the 
alluvium,  and  such  fruit  as  it  produces  in  the  upper  country  is 
very  little  esteemed.11  Olives  were  certainly  cultivated  under 


2 See  above,  page  492. 

3 See  supra,  p.  216,  note  6,  and  p.  566. 

4 Niebuhr,  Voyage  en  Arabie,  p.  295  ; 
Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains , vol.  ii. 
p.  423.  For  the  ancient  practice,  com- 
pare Herod,  i.  193,  and  Strab.  xvi.  1, 
§ 14. 

5 “Come  down,  sit  in  the  dust,  O 
virgin  daughter  of  Babylon,  sit  on  the 
ground  ....  Take  the  millstones,  and 
grind  meal.”  (Is.  xlvii.  1,  2.) 

6 Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  pp.  285-287; 

Niebuhr,  Description  de  l’ Arabie,  p.  45, 

&c. 

' I doubt  whether  there  is  any  repre- 

sentation of  bread  in  the  sculptures. 


The  circular  object  on  the  table  in  the 
banquet-scene  given  below  (p.  580) 
might  represent  a loaf,  but  it  is  more 
probably  a sacred  emblem.  The  Arab 
practice,  which  probably  corresponds 
with  the  most  ancient  mode  of  preparing 
bread,  is  as  given  in  the  text.  See 
Layard,  1.  s.  c.,  and  compare  the  article 
on  Bread,  in  Dr.  Smith’s  Biblical  Dic- 
tionary. 

8 Layard,  p.  289. 

9 Niebuhr,  Description,  fyc.,  p.  45  ; 
Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  vol.  i. 
p.  360. 

10  See  above,  p.  107. 

11  Plin.  H.  N.  xiii.  4. 


Chap.  YII. 


FOOD  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 


577 


the  Empire,12  and  the  oil  extracted  from  them  was  in  great 
request.  Honey  was  abundant,  and  wine  plentiful.  Senna- 
cherib called  his  land  “ a land  of  corn  and 
wine,  a land  of  bread  and  vineyards,  a land 
of  oil  olive  and  of  honey 13  and  the  pro- 
ducts here  enumerated  were  probably  those 
which  formed  the  chief  sustenance  of  the 


Assyrian  joints. 

1.  Shoulder.  2.  Loin. 
3.  Leg. 


bulk  of  the  people. 

Meat,  which  is  never  eaten  to  any  great 
extent  in  the  East,14  was  probably  beyond 
the  means  of  most  persons.  Soldiers,  how- 
ever, upon  an  expedition  were  able  to 
obtain  this  dainty  at  the  expense  of  others  ; 
and  accordingly  we  find  that  on  such  occa- 
sions they  freely  indulged  in  it.  We  see 
them,  after  their  victories,  killing  and  cut- 
ting up  sheep  and  oxen,15  and  then  roasting 
the  joints,  which  are  not  unlike  our  own,  on  the  embers  of  a 
wood-fire.16  In  the  representations  of  entrenched  camps  we  are 
shown  the  mode  in  which  ani- 
mals were  prepared  for  the 
royal  dinner.  They  were  placed 
upon  their  backs  on  a high 
table,  with  their  heads  hanging 
over  its  edge ; one  man  held 
them  steady  in  this  position, 
while  another,  taking  hold  of 
the  neck,  cut  the  throat  a 

little  below  the  chin.17  The  , . x 

Killing  the  sheep  (Ivoyunjik). 

blood  dripped  into  a bowl  or 

basin  placed  beneath  the  head  on  the  ground.  The  animal 


12  2 Kings  xviii.  32.  “A  land  of 
oil  olive.”  When  Herodotus  denies  the 
cultivation  of  the  olive  in  his  day 
(i.  193),  as  also  that  of  the  fig  and  the 
grape,  he  must  refer  to  the  low  alluvial 
country,  which  is  more  properly  Baby- 
lonia than  Assyria. 

13  2 Kings,  1.  s.  c. 

14  “ On  mange  peu  de  viande  dans 

VOL.  I. 


les  pays  chauds,  ou  on  les  croit  mal- 
saines.”  (Niebuhr,  p.  46.)  “ The  com- 

mon Bedouin  can  rarely  get  meat.” 
(Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  289.) 

15  Layard,  Monuments,  1st  Series,  Pis. 
75  and  76  ; 2nd  Series,  PI.  36. 

16  Ibid.  2nd  Series,  Pis.  35  and  36. 

17  Ibid.  PI.  36. 


2 P 


THE  SECOND  MONAKCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


578 


was  then,  no  doubt,  paunched,  after  which  it  was  placed — 
either  whole,  or  in  joints- 


-m 


Cooking  meat  in  caldron  (Koyunjik). 


Frying  (NimrudJ. 


as 


a huge  pot  or  caldron,  and, 
a fire  being  lighted  under- 
neath, it  was  boiled  to  such 
a point  as  suited  the  taste  of 
the  king.  While  the  boiling 
progressed,  some  portions 
were  perhaps,  fried  on  the 
fire  below.  Mutton  appears 
to  have  been  the  favourite 
meat  in  the  camp.  At  the 
court  there  would  be  a supply 
of  venison,  antelope’s  flesh, 
hares,  partridges,  and  other 
game,  varied  perhaps  occa- 
sionally with  such  delicacies 
as  the  flesh  of  the  wild  ox 
and' the  onager. 

Fish  must  have  been  an 
article  of  food  in  Assyria,  or 
the  monuments  would  not 
have  presented  us  with  so 
Locusts  were  also  eaten,  and 
is  proved  by  their  occurrence 


many  instances  of  fishermen.1 
were  accounted  a delicacy 
among  the'  choice  dainties  of  a banquet,  which  the  royal  atten- 
dants are  represented  in  one  bas-relief  as  bringing  into  the  palace 
of  the  king.19  Fruits,  as  was  natural  in  so  hot  a climate,  were 
highly  prized ; among  those  of  most  repute  were  pomegranates, 
grapes,  citrons,20  and,  apparently,  pineapples.21 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  Assyrians  drank  wine  very 


18  See  above,  pp.  525,  526,  and  527. 

19  Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series, 
Pis.  8 and  9 ; Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  338. 
Mr.  Layard  notes  that  “ the  locust  has 
ever  been  an  article  of  food  in  the  East, 
and  is  still  sold  in  the  markets  of  many 
towns  in  Arabia.”  He  quotes  Burck- 
hardt  ( Notes  on  the  Bedouins , p.  269) 
with  respect  to  the  way  they  are  pre- 
pared. A recent  traveller,  who  tasted 


them  fried,  observes  that  they  are  il  like 
what  one  would  suppose  fried  shrimps,” 
and  “ by  no  means  bad.”  (See  Yule’s 
Mission  to  the  Court  of  Ava , p.  114.) 

20  Plin.  H.  N.  xii.  3. 

21  The  representation  is  so  exact  that 
I can  scarcely  doubt  the  pineapple 
being  intended.  Mr.  Layard  expresses 
himself  on  the  point  with  some  hesita- 
tion. {Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  338.) 


Chap.  VII. 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  BANQUETS. 


579 


freely.  The  vine  was  cultivated  extensively,  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Nineveh  and  elsewhere  ; 1 and  though  there  is  no  doubt 
that  grapes  were 
eaten,  both  raw 
and  dried,  still 
the  main  purpose 
of  the  vineyards 

. . Assyrian  fruits.  (From  the  Monuments.) 

was  unquestion- 
ably the  production  of  wine.  Assyria  was  “ a land  of  corn  and 
wine,”  emphatically  and  before  all  else.2  Great  banquets  seem 
to  have  been  frequent  at  the  court,3  as  at  the  courts  of  Babylon  and 
Persia,4  in  which  drinking  was  practised  on  a large  scale.  The 
Ninevites  generally  are  reproached  as  drunkards  by  Nahum.5 
In  the  banquet-scenes  of  the  sculptures,  it  is  drinking  and  not 
eating  that  is  represented.  Attendants  dip  the  wine-cups  into 
a huge  bowl  or  vase,  which  stands  on  the  ground  and  reaches 
as  high  as  a man’s  chest,6  and  carry  them  full  of  liquor  to  the 
guests,  who  straightway  fall  to  a carouse. 

The  arrangement  of  the  banquets  is  curious.  The  guests, 
who  are  in  one  instance  some  forty  or  fifty  in  number,7  instead 
of  being  received  at  a common  table,  are  divided  into  messes  of 
four,  who  sit  together,  two  and  two,  facing  each  other,  each 
mess  having  its  own  table  and  its  own  attendant.  The  guests 
are  all  clothed  in  the  long  tasseled  gown,  over  which  they  wear 
the  deeply  fringed  belt  and  cross-belt.  They  have  sandals  on 
their  feet,  and  on  their  arms  armlets  and  bracelets.  They  sit 
on  high  stools,  from  which  their  legs  dangle;  but  in  no  case 
have  they  footstools,  which  would  apparently  have  been  a great 
convenience.  Most  of  the  guests  are  bearded  men,  but  inter- 
mixed with  them  we  see  a few  eunuchs.8  Every  guest  holds  in 


1 Supra,  p.  567.  2 2 Kings  xviii.  32. 

3 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  20 ; Botta,  Monument , 
Pis.  51  to  67,  and  107  to  114. 

4 Dan.  v.  1 ; Esther  i.  3 ; Herod,  ix. 
110. 

5 Nahum,  i.  10.  “ While  they  are 

drunken  as  drunkards,  they  shall  be 
devoured,  as  stubble  fully  dry.” 

6 This  vase  is  represented  p.  388. 

7 Forty  guests  were  still . to  be  traced 


at  the  time  of  M.  Botta’s  discoveries, 
while  many  slabs  were  even  then  so 
injured  that  their  subject  could  not  be 
made  out.  Along  the  line  of  wall  occu- 
pied by  the  banqueting  scene,  there  was 
ample  room  for  twenty  more  guests. 

8 In  M.  Flandin’s  drawings  this  does 
not  appear;  but  M.  Botta  is  confident 
that  it  was  so  in  the  sculptures  them- 
selves ( Monument , vol.  v.  p.  131). 

2 p 2 


580 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


his  right  hand  a wine-cup  of  a most  elegant  shape,  the  lower 
part  modelled  into  the  form  of  a lion’s  head,  from  which  the 


Drinking  scene  (Kh-orsabad). 


cup  itself  rises  in  a graceful  curve.  They  all  raise  their  cups 
to  a level  with  their  heads,  and  look  as  if  they  were  either 
pledging  each  other,  or  else  one  and  all  drinking 
the  same  toast.  Both  the  stools  and  the  tables 
are  handsome,  and  tastefully,  though  not  very 
richly,  ornamented.  Each  table  is  overspread 
with  a table-cloth,  which  hangs  down  on  either 
side  opposite  the  guests,  but  does  not  cover  the 
ends  of  the  table,  which  are  thus  fully  exposed 
to  view.  In  their  general  make  the  tables 
exactly  resemble  that  used  in  a banquet-scene 
by  a king  of  a later  date,9  but  their  ornamenta- 
tion is  much  less  elaborate.  On  each  of  them 
appears  to  have  been  placed  the  enigmatical  article  of  which 
mention  has  been  already  made  as  a strange  object  generally 


Ornamental  wine- 
cup  (Khorsabad). 


9 See  tbe  representation,  p.  493. 


Chap.  VII. 


FESTAL  MUSIC  AND  FLOWERS. 


58l 


accompanying  the  king.10  Alongside  of  it  we  see  in  most  instances 
a sort  of  rude  crescent.11  These  objects  have  probably,  both  of 
them,  a sacred  import,  the  crescent  being  the  emblem  of  Sin, 
the  Moon-God,12  while  the  nameless  article  had  some  unknown 


religious  use  or  meaning. 

In  the  great  banqueting  scene  at  Khorsabad,  from  which  the 
above  description  is  chiefly  taken,  it  is  shown  that  the  Assyrians, 
like  the  Egyptians  and  the  Greeks 
in  the  heroic  times,13  had  the  enter- 
tainment of  music  at  their  grand 
feasts  and  drinking  bouts.  At  one 
end  of  the  long  series  of  figures  repre- 
senting guests  and  attendants  was  a 
band  of  performers,  at  least  three 
in  number,  two  of  whom  certainly 
played  upon  the  lyre.14  The  lyres 
were  ten-stringed,  of  a square  shape, 
and  hung  round  the  player’s  neck  by 
a string  or  riband. 

The  Assyrians  also  resembled  the 
Greeks  and  Romans 15  in  introducing 
flowers  into  their  feasts.  We  have 
no  evidence  that  they  wore  garlands, 
or  crowned  themselves  with  chaplets 
of  flowers,  or  scattered  roses  over 
their  rooms;  but  still  they  appre- 
ciated the  delightful  adornment  Attendant  bringing  flowers  to  a 
which  flowers  furnish.  In  the  W banquet  (KoyunjikJ- 

o 

train  of  attendants  represented  at  Koyunjik  as  bringing  the 


10  Supra,  p.  494. 

11  M.  Botta  speaks  as  if  the  objects 
had  been  different  on  the  different  tables 
(Monument,  vol.  v.  p.  131)  ; but  M.  Flan- 
din’s  drawings  show  ssarcely  any  variety. 
The  condition  of  the  slabs  was  very 
bad,  and  the  objects  on  the  tables  could 
scarcely  ever  be  distinctly  made  out. 

12  See  supra,  p.  124,  and  vol.  ii.  p.  18. 

13  For  the  Egyptian  practice,  see 
Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyptians,  1st  Series, 
vol.  ii.  p.  222 ; for  that  of  the  Greeks, 


compare  Horn.  Od.  i.  150-155 ; Athen. 
Deipn.  xiv.  6,  & c. 

14  One  of  these  has  been  already 
represented,  supra,  p.  532.  The  figure 
of  the  third  musician  was  so  much 
injured  that  his  instrument  could  not 
be  made  out.  There  was  room  for  two  or 
three  more  performers.  (Botta,  PI.  67.) 

15  Athen.  Deipn.  xv.  10;  Hor.  Od.  iii, 
19,  1.  22 , i.  37,  1.  15 , Ov.  Fast.  v.  337, 
&c. 


582 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


materials  of  a banquet  into  the  palace  of  the  king,  a considerable 
number  bear  vases  of  flowers.  These  were  probably  placed  on 
stands,  like  those  which  are  often  seen  supporting  jars,16  and 
dispersed  about  the  apartment  in  which  the  feast  was  held,  but 
not  put  upon  the  tables. 

We  have  no  knowledge  of  the  ordinary  houses  of  the  Assyrians 
other  than  that  which  we  derive  from  the  single  representation 
which  the  sculptures  furnish  of  a village  certainly  Assyrian.17 
It  appears  from  this  specimen  that  the  houses  were  small, 
isolated  from  one  another,  and  either  flat-roofed,  or  else  covered 
in  with  a dome  or  a high  cone.  They  had  no  windows,  but 
must  have  been  lighted  from  the  top,  \tfhere,  in  some  of  the 
roofs,  an  aperture  is  discernible.  The  doorway  was  generally 
placed  towards  one  end  of  the  house  ; it  was  sometimes  arched, 
but  more  often  square-headed. 

The  doors  in  Assyrian  houses  were  either  single,  as  commonly 
with  ourselves,  or  folding  (fores  or  valvse),  as  with  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  and  with  the  modern  Fi  ench  and  Italians.  Folding- 
doors  were  the  most  common  in  palaces.1  They  were  not  hung 
upon  hinges,  like  modern  doors,  but,  like  those  of  the  classical 
nations,2  turned  upon  pivots.  At  Khorsabad  the  pavement 
slabs  in  the  doorways  showed  everywhere  the  holes  in  which 
these  pivots  had  worked,  while  in  no  instance  did  the  wall  at 
the  side  present  any  trace  of  the  insertion  of  a binge.3  Hinges, 
however,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  were  not  unknown  to 
the  Assyrians  ; for  two  massive  bronze  sockets  found  at  Nimrud, 
which  weighed  more  than  six  pounds  each, 
and  had  a diameter  of  about  five  inches,4 
must  have  been  designed  to  receive  the 
hinges  of  a door  or  gate,  hung  exactly  as 
Socket  of  hinge  (Nimrud).  gapes  are  now  hung  among  ourselves.  The 

folding-doors  w7ere  fastened  by  bolts,  which  were  shot  into  the 
pavement  at  the  point  where  the  two  doors  met ; but  in  the  case 


16  See  pp.  387  and  3S8. 

17  See  p.  322,  where  this  village  is  re- 
presented. 

1 See  Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive , vols. 
i.  and  ii.  jassim. 


2 Diet,  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiqui- 
ties, ad  voc.  Cakdo. 

3 Botta,  vol.  v.  p.  45. 

4 Layard,  Ninevth  and  Babylon , p. 

163. 


Chap.  VII. 


ASSYRIAN  FURNITURE. 


583 


of  single  doors  a lock  seems  to  have  been  used,  which  was  placed 
about  four  feet  from  the  ground,  and  projected  from  the  door 
itself,  so  that  a recess  had  to  be  made  in  the  wall  behind  the 
door,  to  receive  the  lock  when  the  door  stood  open.5  The  bolt 
of  the  lock  was  of  an  oblong  square  shape,  and  was  shot  into  the 
wall  against  which  the  door  closed.6 

The  ordinary  character  of  Assyrian  furniture  did  not  greatly 
differ  from  the  furniture  of  modern  times.  That  of  the  poorer 
classes  was  for  the  most  part  extremely  plain,  consisting  pro- 
bably of  such  tables,  couches,  and  low  stools  as  we  see  in  the 
representations,  which  are  so  fre- 
quent, of  the  interiors  of  soldiers’ 
tents.7  In  these  the  tables  are 
generally  of  the  cross-legged  kind ; 
the  couches  follow  the  pattern  given 
in  a previous  page  of  this  volume,8 
except  that  the  legs  do  not  end  in  Assyrians  seated  on  stools 
pine-shaped  ornaments ; and  the  (Koyunjik). 

stools  are  either  square  blocks,  or  merely  cut  en  chevron .9  There 
are  no  chairs.  The  low  stools  evidently  form  the  ordinary  seats 
of  the  people,  on  which  they  sit  to 
converse  or  to  rest  themselves.  The 
couches  seem  to  have  been  the  beds 
whereon  the  soldiers  slept,  and  it 
may  be  doubted  if  the  Assyrians 
knew  of  any  other.  In  the  case  of 
the  monarch  we  have  seen  that  the 
bedding  consisted  of  a mattress,  a 
large  round  pillow  or  cushion,  and 
a coverlet ; 10  but  in  these  simple 
couches  of  the  poor  we  observe  only 
a mattress,  the  upper  part  of  which 
is  slightly  raised  and  fitted  into  the  Makmg  the  bed  (Koyunjik). 
curvature  of  the  arm,  so  as  to  make  a substitute  for  a pillow. 


5 Botta,  Monument , vol.  ii.  PI.  136 ; 
and  vol.  v.  p.  48. 

6 Ibid.  vol.  ii.  PI.  123. 

7 Supra,  p.  465.  Further  examples 

will  be  found  in  Mr.  Layard’s  Monu- 


ments, 1st  Series,  PI.  77 ; 2nd  Series, 
Pis.  24,  36,  and  50 ; and  in  M.  Botta’s 
Monument , PI.  146.  8 Page  395. 

9 See  the  footstool,  No.  I.,  on  the  same 
page.  10  Supra,  p.  495. 


5 §4 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Perhaps,  however,  the  day-labourer  may  haye  enjoyed  on  a 
couch  of  this  simple  character  slumbers  sounder  and  more 
refreshing  than  Sardanapalus  amid  his  comparative  luxury. 

The  household  utensils  seen  in  combination  with  these  simple 
articles  of  furniture  are  few  and  somewhat  rudely  shaped.  A 
jug  with  a long  neck,  an  angular  handle,  and  a pointed  bottom, 

is  common : it  usually  hangs 
from  a nail  or  hook  inserted 
into  the  tent-pole.  Yases 
and  bowls  of  a simple  form 
occur,  but  are  less  frequent. 
The  men  are  seen  with 
knives  in  their  hands,  and 
appear  sometimes  to  be 
preparing  food  for  their 
meals ; 11  but  the  form  of  the 
knife  is  marked  very  indis- 
tinctly. Some  of  the  house- 
hold articles  represented 
have  a strange  and  unusual 
appearance.  One  is  a sort  of 
short  ladder,  hut  with  semi- 
circular projections  at  the 
bottom,  the  use  of  which  is  not  apparent;  another  may  be  a 
board  at  which  some  game  was  played ; 12  while  a third  is  quite 
inexplicable. 

From  actual  discoveries  of  the  utensils  themselves,  we  know 


Dish  handles  (Nimrud). 

that  the  Assyrians  used  dishes  of  stone,  alabaster,  and  bronze. 
They  had  also  bronze  cups,  bowls,  and  plates,  often  elaborately 

11  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series,  represented  in  the  author’s  Herodotus , 

PI.  77  ; 2nd  Series,  Pis,  24  and  36.  yol.  ii.  pp.  276,  277,  2nd  ed. 

12  Compare  the  Egyptian  hoards,  as 


Domestic  utensils. 


1.  Vase.  2.  Jug.  3.  Bowl.  4 and  5.  Un- 
known implements.  6.  Board  for  playing 
a game  (?). 


Chap.  Y1I. 


THE  “HANGING  GARDENS/ 


585 


patterned.13  The  dishes  were  commonly  made  with  a handle  at 
the  side,  either  fixed  or  moveable,  by  which,  when  not  in  use, 
they  could  be  carried  or  hung  on  pegs.  Caldrons  of  bronze 
were  also  common : they  varied  from  five  feet  to 
eighteen  inches  in  height,  and  from  two  feet  and  a 
half  to  six  feet  in  diameter.14  Jugs,  funnels,  ladles, 
and  jars  have  been  found  in  the  same  metal;  one  of 
the  funnels  is  shaped  nearly  like  a modern  wine- 
strainer.15 

The  Assyrians  made  use  of  bronze  bells  with  iron 
tongues,1  and,  to  render  the  sound  of  these  more 
pleasing,  they  increased  the  proportion  of  the  tin  to  the 
copper,  raising  it  from  ten  to  fourteen  per  cent.  The 
bells  were  always  of  small  size,  never  (so  far  as  ap- 
pears) exceeding  three  inches  and  a quarter  in  height, 
and  two  inches  and  a quarter  in  diameter.  It  is  Bronze  ladle 

J (Nimrud). 

uncertain  whether  they  were  used,  as  modern  bells,  to 
summon  attendants,  or  only  attached,  as  we  see  them  on  the 
sculptures,2  to  the  collars  and  headstalls  of  horses. 

Some  houses,  but  probably  not  very  many,  had  gardens 
attached  to  them.  The  Assyrian  taste  in  gar- 
dening was  like  that  of  the  French.  Trees  of  a 
similar  character,  or  tall  trees  alternating  with 
short  ones,  were  planted  in  straight-  rows  at  an 
equal  distance  from  one  another,  while  straight 
paths  and  walks,  meeting  each  other  at  right  angles, 
traversed  the  grounds.3  Water  was  abundantly 
supplied  by  means  of  canals  drawn  off  from  a 
neighbouring  river,  or  was  brought  by  an  aqueduct 
from  a distance.4  A national  taste  of  a peculiar 
kind,  artificial  and  extravagant  to  a degree,  caused 
the  Assyrians  to  add  to  the  cultivation  of  the  Hanging  garden 
natural  ground  the  monstrous  invention  of  “ Hang-  (K°yunjlk)- 
ing  Gardens:”  an  invention  introduced  into  Babylonia  at  a 


13  See  above,  p.  368. 

14  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp. 

177-180. 

15  Ibid.  p.  181. 

1  Ibid.  p.  177.  Compare  also  pp.  191 


and  671. 

2 Supra,  pp.  416  and  417. 

3 See  the  representation  of  a garde 
p.  229. 

4 Compare  p.  310. 


586 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


comparatively  late  date,  but  known  in  Assyria  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Sennacherib.5  A “ hanging  garden  ” was  sometimes 
combined  with  an  aqueduct,  the  banks  of  the  stream  which  the 
aqueduct  bore  being  planted  with  trees  of  different  kinds.6 
At  other  times  it  occupied  the  roof  of  a building,  probably  raised 
for  the  purpose,  and  was  supported  upon  a number  of  pillars. 

The  employments  of  the  Assyrians,  which  receive  some  illus- 
tration from  the  monuments,  are,  besides  war  and  hunting — 
subjects  already  discussed  at  length — chiefly  building,  boating, 
and  agriculture.  Of  agricultural  labourers,  there  occur  two 
or  three  only,  introduced  by  the  artist  into  a slab  of  Senna- 
cherib’s which  represents  the  transport  of  a winged  bull.7  They 
are  dressed  in  the  ordinary  short  tunic  and  belt,  and  are  em- 
ployed in  drawing  water  from  a river  by  the  help  of  hand- 
swipes  for  the  purpose  of  irrigating  their  lands.8  Boatmen  are 
far  more  common.  They  are  seen  employed  in  the  conveyance 
of  masses  of  stone,9  and  of  other  materials  for  building,10  ferrying 
men  and  horses  across  a river,11  guiding  their  boat  while  a 
fisherman  plies  his  craft  from  it,12  assisting  soldiers  to  pursue 
the  enemy,13  and  the  like.  They  wear  the  short  tunic  and  belt, 
and  sometimes  have  their  hair  encircled  with  a fillet.  Of 

labourers,  em- 
ployed in  work 
connected  with 
building,  the  ex- 
amples are  nu- 
merous. In  the 
long  series  of 
slabs  represent- 
ing the  construc- 

Assyrians  drawing  a hand-cart  (Koyunjik).  . 

tion  oi  some  ot 

Sennacherib’s  great  works,14  although  the  bulk  of  those  employed 


5 Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon , pp. 

232,  233.  6 See  p.  310. 

7 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI. 
15. 

8 A representation  of  a labourer  thus 

employed,  taken  from  the  slab  in  ques- 

tion, has  been  already  given,  p.  215. 


9 See  p.  338. 

10  Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI. 
12. 

11  Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  232. 

12  Ibid.  p.  231. 

13  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  PI.  27. 

14  Ibid.  Pis.  10  to  17.  I 


Chap.  VII. 


IMPLEMENTS  OF  LABOUR. 


587 


as  labourers  appear  to  be  foreign  captives,  there  are  a certain 
number  of  the  duties — duties  less  purely  mechanical  than  the 
others — which  are  devolved  on  Assyrians.  Assyrians  load  the 
hand-carts,  and  sometimes  even  draw  them,  convey  the  imple- 
ments— pickaxes,  saws,  shovels,  hatchets,  beams,  forks,  coils  of 
rope — place  the  rollers,  arrange  the  lever  and  work  it,  keep  the 
carved  masses  of  stone  steady  as  they  are  moved  along  to  their 
proper  places,  urge  on  the  gangs  of  forced  labourers  with  sticks, 
and  finally  direct  the  whole  of  the  proceedings  by  signals,  which 
they  give  with  their  voice  or  with  a long  horn.  Thus,  however 
ample  the  command  of  naked  human  strength  enjoyed  by  the 
Assyrian  king,  who  had  always  at  his  absolute  disposal  the  labour 
of  many  thousand  captives,  still  there  was  in  every  great  work 
much  which  could  only  be  intrusted  to  Assyrians,  who  appear 
to  have  been  employed  largely  in  the  grand  constructions  of 
their  monarchs. 

The  implements  of  labour  have  a considerable  resemblance 
to  those  in  present  use  among  ourselves.  The  saws  were  two- 
handed  ; but  as  the  handle 
was  in  the  same  line  with 
the  blade,  instead  of  being 
set  at  right  angles  to  it, 
they  must  have  been 
somewhat  awkward  to  use. 

The  shovels  were  heart- 
shaped,  like  those  which 
Sir  0.  Fellows  noticed  in 
Asia  Minor.15  The  pick- 
axes  had  a single  instead  Assyrian  imPkm“tS-  *he  Monuments.) 

of  a double  head,  while  the  hatchets  were  double-headed, 
though  here  probably  the  second  head  was  a mere  knob  intended 
to  increase  the  force  of  the  blow.  The  hand-carts  were  small 
and  of  very  simple  construction  : they  were  made  open  in 
front  and  behind,  but  had  a slight  framework  at  the  sides.  They 
had  a pole,  rising  a little  in  front,  and  were  generally  drawn 


15  Journal  written  during  an  Excursion  in  Asia  Minor , p.  72. 


5.88 


THE  SECOND  MONAECHY. 


Chap.  YII. 


by  two  men.  The  wheels  were  commonly  four-spoked.  When 
the  load  had  been  placed  on  the  cart,  it  seems  to  have  been  in 
general  secured  by  two  bands  or  ropes,  which  were  passed  over 
it  diagonally,  so  as  to  cross  each  other  at  the  top. 

Carts  drawn  by  animals  were  no  doubt  used  in  the  country ; 
but  they  are  not  found  except  in  the  scenes  representing  the 
triumphant  returns  of  armies,  where  it  is  more  probable  that 
the  vehicles  are  foreign  than  Assyrian.  They  have  poles — not 
shafts — and  are  drawn  by  two  animals,  either  oxen,  mules,  or 
asses.  The  wheels  have  generally  a large  number  of  spokes — 
sometimes  as  many  as  eleven.  Representations  of  these  carts 
will  be  found  in  earlier  pages.16 

The  Assyrians  appear  to  have  made  occasional  use  of  covered 
carriages.  Several  vehicles  of  this  kind  are  represented  on  an 
obelisk  in  the  British  Museum.  They  have  a high  and  clumsy 

body,  which  shows  no  win- 
dow, and.  is  placed  on 
four  disproportionately 
low  wheels,  which  raise  it 
only  about  a foot  from  the 
ground.  In  front  of  this 
body  is  a small  driving- 
place,  enclosed  in  trellis- 
work,  inside  which  the 
coachman  stands  to  drive. 
Each  of  these  vehicles  is 
drawn  by  two  horses.  It  is  probable  that  they  were  used  to 
convey  the  ladies  of  the  court ; and  they  were  therefore  care- 
fully closed,  in  order  that  no  curious  glance  of  passers-by  might 
rest  upon  the  charming  inmates.  The  carjpentum,  in  which  the 
Roman  matrons  rode  at  the  great  public  festivals,  was  similarly 
closed,  both  in  front  and  behind,  as  is  evident  from  the  repre- 
sentations which  we  have  of  it  on  medals  and  tombs. 

Except  in  the  case  of  these  covered  vehicles,  and  of  the 
chariots  used  in  war  and  hunting,  horses  (as  already  observed  ]) 


Assyrian  close  carriage  or  litter.  (From  an 
obelisk  in  the  British  Museum.) 


16  Pp.  234  and  243. 


Supra,  p.  233,  note  r. 


Chap.  VII. 


MANAGEMENT  OF  HORSES 


589 


were  not  employed  for  draught.  The  Assyrians  appear  to  have 
regarded  them  as  too  noble  for  this  purpose,  unless  where  the 
monarch  and  those  near  to  him  were  concerned,  for  whose  needs 
nothing  was  too  precious.  On  the  military  expeditions  the 
horses  were  carefully  fed 
and  tended.  Portable  man- 
gers were  taken  with  the 
army  for  their  conveni- 
ence ; and  their  food,  which 
was  probably  barley,  was 
brought  to  them  by  grooms 

in  sieves  or  shallow  boxes,  Groom  feeding  horses  (Koyunjik). 

whence  no  doubt  it  was 

transferred  to  the  mangers.  They  appear  to  have  been  allowed 
to  go  loose  in  the  camp,  without  being  either  hobbled  or 
picketed.2  Care  was 
taken  to  keep  their 
coats  clean  and  glossy 
by  the  use  of  the  cur- 
rycomb, wdiich  was 
probably  of  iron.3 

Halters  of  two 
kinds  were  employed. 

Sometimes  they  con- 
sisted of  a mere  sim- 
ple noose,  which  was 
placed  in  the  horse’s 

- _ . Groom  currycombing  a horse. 

mouth,  and  then 

drawn  tight  round  the  chin.4  More  often  (as  in  the  above 
woodcut)  the  rope  w7as  attached  to  a headstall,  not  unlike  that 
of  an  ordinary  bridle,  but  simpler,  and  probably  of  a cheaper 
material.  Leading  reins,  fastened  to  the  bit  of  an  ordinary 
bridle,  were  also  common.5 


2 See  Layard,  Monuments , 1st  Series, 
PI.  63 ; 2nd  Series,  Pis.  24  and  36. 

3 No  currycomb  has  been  found ; but 

an  iron  comb,  brought  from  Koyunjik, 

is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  (See 


above,  p.  575.) 

4 Layard,  Monuments , 2nd  Series,  Pis. 
7 and  47. 

5 Ibid.  Pis.  19,  24,  29,  &c. 


590 


THE  SECOND  MONARCHY. 


Chap.  VII. 


Such  are  the  principal  points  connected  with  the  peaceful 
customs  of  the  Assyrians,  on  which  the  monuments  recently 
discovered  throw  a tolerable  amount  of  light.  Much  still 
remains  in  obscurity.  It  is  not  possible  as  yet,  without  drawing 
largely  on  the  imagination,  to  portray  in  any  completeness  the 
private  life  even  of  the  Assyrian  nobles,  much  less  that  of 
the  common  people.  All  that  can  be  done  is  to  gather  up  the 
fragments  which  time  has  spared  ; to  arrange  them  in  something 
like  order,  and  present  them  faithfully  to  the  general  reader, 
wrho,  it  is  hoped,  will  feel  a certain  degree  of  interest  in  them 
severally,  as  matters  of  archaeology,  and  who  will  probably 
further  find  that  he  obtains  from  them  in  combination  a fair 
notion  of  the  general  character  and  condition  of  the  race,  of 
its  mingled  barbarism  and  civilisation,  knowledge  and  igno- 
rance, art  and  rudeness,  luxury  and  simplicity  of  habits.  The 
novelist  and  even  the  essayist  may  commeudably  eke  out  the 
scantiness  of  facts  by  a free  indulgence  in  the  wide  field  of 
supposition  and  conjecture ; but  the  historian  is  not  entitled  to 
stray  into  this  enchanted  ground.  He  must  be  content  to 
remain  within  the  tame  and  narrow  circle  of  established  fact. 
Where  his  materials  are  abundant,  he  is  entitled  to  draw  graphic 
sketches  of  the  general  condition  of  a people ; but  where  they 
are  scanty,  as  in  the  present  instance,  he  must  be  content  to 
forego  such  pleasant  pictures,  in  which  the  colouring  and  the 
filling-up  would  necessarily  be  derived,  not  from  authentic  data, 
but  from  his  own  fancy. 


END  OF  VOL.  I. 


LONDON:  PRINTED  BT  WILLIAM  CLOWES  AND  SONS,  STAMFORD  STREET , 


AND  CHARING  CROSS. 


\ 


> , 


